Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Thomas Dai on August 02, 2019, 02:18:43 PM
-
Came across this - https://www.rollbackalliance.org/ (https://www.rollbackalliance.org/)
Thought others who aren't already aware might like to be so.
atb
-
Where's the list of founding members?
-
Interesting site, i'll sign up.
P.S. Can you name that hole? Background looks a bit like BlackMesa
-
I know a guy who asks to "roll the ball back" for a second try, anytime he misses a five footer.....
-
Bet they have a "Merch Drop" soon.
-
Bet they have a "Merch Drop" soon.
🤣🤣i would bet the farm on it!
-
Note the email address;
rollbackalliance@gmail.com
A sure sign that this is one guy working out of his bedroom...
-
Note the email address;
rollbackalliance@gmail.com
A sure sign that this is one guy working out of his bedroom...
Most rebellions start that way, and this one is starting in Melbourne. ;)
When you look at the Instagram account, which has no post yet, there are many "known" names that are familiar to the conversation that are following them. I think Bifurcation of the Rules, which we already have with separate tees, is a better strategy. But what the hey, I gave them my Google email, and Google already knows everything about my golf game!!
And dang-it, I like the logo and symbolism:
(https://www.rollbackalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Flag_Simple_Rectangle.png)
The Rollback Alliance flag is inspired by the International Maritime Signal Flag for the letter G. The phonetic alphabet term for G is golf. When the flag is flown by itself, it is interpreted on the seas as a signal meaning “I require a pilot”. In nautical terms, a pilot is a navigator who guides vessels through hazardous waters. This analogy is one we find very fitting given our aim of advocacy for golf equipment reform in this complicated time.
-
After inquiry some of the proposed “founders” post on here quite frequently
-
Instead of waiting for someone to implement a rollback, what’s preventing these guys from playing balls and equipment that aren’t tricked out/juiced?
Nothing really makes a statement than leading by example.
-
Instead of waiting for someone to implement a rollback, what’s preventing these guys from playing balls and equipment that aren’t tricked out/juiced?
Nothing really makes a statement than leading by example.
I think the problem is the Bethpage Black and Shinnecock conversations and also the greens conversations. They keep changing the courses to accommodate the top 0.01% of golfers. I have taken the lead by not playing The Black any longer on my own, but will still play it when out out of towners or my son request it.
I really would rather play Southampton GC these days over Shinnecock. I get it, I am not a member at Shinnecock and it is their course, but this is GCA where we provide "frank commentary".
Then you have the greens conversations where greens are ramped up to compensate for 9 irons into greens, and we have two US Opens on amped up greens at Shinnecock and controversy follows. Now you get Merion GC flattening greens, I am told. Many courses follow the lead of the US Open, so fast greens follow and the "arms race" gets expensive.
Then you take the US Open to modern courses - Erin Hills and that does not really work.
Obviously Mike Clayton was/is a very good to great player who now is an architect. I don't know that he is the driver of this, but he is one of the names following on Instagram along with Shackelford. I don't know Mike or Shack in anyway other than GCA, but Mike seems pretty reasonable.
Thus, all of this leads to my suggestion that "bifurcation" is a better option.
One thing is for sure. It is completely silly to have 15,000 courses in the USA, and I think an additional 15,000+ additional courses world wide be subject to being obsolete when a few technical adjustments could be made to the ball that the PGA Tour level pros play, IMO.
-
Instead of waiting for someone to implement a rollback, what’s preventing these guys from playing balls and equipment that aren’t tricked out/juiced?
Nothing really makes a statement than leading by example.
I think the problem is the Bethpage Black and Shinnecock conversations and also the greens conversations. They keep changing the courses to accommodate the top 0.01% of golfers. I have taken the lead by not playing The Black any longer on my own, but will still play it when out out of towners or my son request it.
I really would rather play Southampton GC these days over Shinnecock. I get it, I am not a member at Shinnecock and it is their course, but this is GCA where we provide "frank commentary".
Then you have the greens conversations where greens are ramped up to compensate for 9 irons into greens, and we have two US Opens on amped up greens at Shinnecock and controversy follows. Now you get Merion GC flattening greens, I am told. Many courses follow the lead of the US Open, so fast greens follow and the "arms race" gets expensive.
Then you take the US Open to modern courses - Erin Hills and that does not really work.
Obviously Mike Clayton was/is a very good to great player who now is an architect. I don't know that he is the driver of this, but he is one of the names following on Instagram along with Shackelford. I don't know Mike or Shack in anyway other than GCA, but Mike seems pretty reasonable.
Thus, all of this leads to my suggestion that "bifurcation" is a better option.
One thing is for sure. It is completely silly to have 15,000 courses in the USA, and I think an additional 15,000+ additional courses world wide be subject to being obsolete when a few technical adjustments could be made to the ball that the PGA Tour level pros play, IMO.
Do you think that many courses will be subject to being obsolete if nothing is done?
There are thousands upon thousands of courses that run green speeds pretty slow and accommodate playing non tricked up/juiced products.
I agree with you on bifurcation, but the horse is out of the barn. Only ANGC is gonna have the power to change things...everyone else in “charge” is beta.
-
Thanks for starting the thread on Rollback Alliance, Thomas. And to those who have visited the site and expressed interest.
Rollback Alliance is the idea of Will Watt (founder and editor of Caddie Magazine) and me. I wrote an article for Volume Four of Caddie, focusing on a Rollback, and Will and me continued to discuss the topic after copies had hit the newsstands. We spoke about doing something more long-term and meaningful. At that time, I was really not achieving a lot by exchanging tweets on distance with Brandel Chamblee.
The aim of the Alliance is to promote informed discussion on the issue, and hopefully increase the likelihood of regulatory reform. Some within the group are in favor of a universal rollback, some are fans of bifurcation. I don't mind the disparate opinions. As long as the communication is positive, educated, and inclusive, I think we can achieve something.
We aim to develop the website into a resource people can visit for more information on the issue, so their thinking is broadened, and their concerns regarding a rollback are addressed. We also hope to unite the voices that have been calling for this sort of change through the last century.
Will and me have approached a handful of individuals to become 'pilots' or informal ambassadors of RA - people of knowledge and passion who are respected within golf. Their association / endorsement of the core message of the Alliance will no doubt assist us in meeting our aims.
A list of pilots will be included within the website when the initial recruitment phase is complete. Mike Clayton was the first to accept the invitation, and several others including Jay Revell, Christian Hafer, Lee Patterson, Tron Carter, Derek Duncan, Ian Andrew, Garrett Morrison and Ran have also accepted. The contribution each makes will vary given time constraints and their workloads elsewhere - something I'm sensitive to given my own busy professional life and young family.
Those who know me are aware I'm already playing reduced flight balls (McIntyre) and play most rounds with hickory clubs, especially through the warmer / dryer six months of the year. Rees, the issue is far beyond what equipment me and Will play, as you know. Mike Cirba's Feature Interview in April included the following lines -
"A game dependent upon 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".
I think this is a very important point. Anyone here who has read Geoff Shackelford's book "The Future of Golf" (and I hope most here have!) knows golf must step up and deal with several pressing issues regarding the health and heritage of the game - with this being one such issue. It's my hope the Rollback Alliance facilitates the game's governing bodies reaching a suitable solution to this, for all parties concerned.
Matt Mollica
-
^^^Interesting. Tell us about these limited flight balls. Are there any balls out there that mimic the flight of the old Titleist Tour Balata or Titleist Professional?
-
Mike Sweeney,
I'm far from reasonable - at least when it comes to this!!
Rees,
Most courses aren't 'obsolete' because most courses weren't intended to be the courses likely to decide big championship golf. 6600 yards is plenty of golf for 95% of people who play.
Whilst not the be-all-and-end all, 'championship courses' (the important ones anyway and not just those attaching the label for marketing hype) are important. Places like Royal Melbourne,Shinnecock and Muirfield, for example.
In Australia all of our best clubs and courses were designed to replicate the tests set by the championship courses of Britain. They were members clubs but their dual roll was to be well able to hold state and national titles - both amateur and professional.
Alister MacKenzie, Alex Russell and a couple of others designed and redesigned a number of them - Royal Melbourne,Kingston Heath,Royal Adelaide,Royal Sydney,Lake Karrinyup,Victoria - and had significant influences at many more.
All have been stretched as far as possible by they are now obsolete (and have been for some time) if the measure is how the original designers saw them playing and intended them to play.
Holes at Royal Melbourne we all used to play with drives and middle irons and now mostly driver and wedge. The Presidents Cup in December will simply be another piece of evidence.
Of course our problem in Australia is we have no influence - because the game is run by the seemingly impotent USGA and R&A -whose role - whose purpose - in the equipment debate was to maintain the skill it took to play the game (something clearly diminished by the modern ball and the frying pan drivers) and to protect the great courses against exactly what has happened.
I think a rollback is inevitable because we aren't even close to what's possible in terms of how far the best players will be able to make the ball go. All it is going to take is the emergence of the next generation of kids to are being taught to swing at 125-130 mph and to propel the ball at 200mph.
Then it is truly all over and they will be forced to act - unless of course the manufacturers are as powerful as the most powerful lobby groups - pick your poison - in the USA.
-
^^^Interesting. Tell us about these limited flight balls. Are there any balls out there that mimic the flight of the old Titleist Tour Balata or Titleist Professional?
Tom - visit here.
https://www.mcintyregolf.com/replica-golf-balls (https://www.mcintyregolf.com/replica-golf-balls)
They don't spin much but feel soft and don't go as far as contemporary balls. They're ideal for hickories.
-
Well done to the folks from Downunder for progressing this matter.
The quote from Mike Cirba's interview that Matthew has re-posted sums things up nicely so I'll repeat it once more -
"A game dependent upon so much of the earth's acreage on a shrinking planet with finite resources in 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".
The game more important than the manufacturers.
atb
-
I am confused as to why roll backers don't think equipment bifurcation is the better option to an across the board ball roll back. I say this for a few reasons
1. It is a form of compromise which will be more acceptable for most golfers.
2. The fear of having to alter courses, that is, mainly where tees will be placed and if so how far from greens, will be reduced.
3. Bifurcation may very well lead back to unification if and when golfers become convinced a roll back isn't the end of the world.
I understand a two ball spec may cause issues at the local club level, but with the world wide capping system coming online part of the issue isn't. Plus, part of a possible unification system down the road could by led by clubs having "elite" divisions in comps where non elite players choose to use a roll back ball. I can even imagine some clubs becoming elite, meaning if you join you do so knowing that comps use elite equipment regardless of handicap.
On the bigger picture, it's easy to make pro events and world amateur ranking events use elite rules roll back equipment.
Ciao
-
Sean –
I’m of the same mind as you. Neat, clean universal rollback. This is probably a more palatable option for the ball manufacturers – and I’m sensitive to them in this whole issue. The games stakeholders all need to be as united as can be – which is going to require some diplomacy and political nous!
I’m not speaking for everyone in the Alliance when I convey this. My personal view is -
Nothing can convince me otherwise - ball manufacturers possess the ability to make a ball that barely taxes the short hitting amateur, yet sees greater percentage reduction to flight and roll of faster swing speed / bigger hitting player. The trick will be to ensure some degree of proportionality among professional players – so that the far hitting, strong and quick guys like Wolff and Brooks enjoy some equitable and appropriate advantage over the Kelly Krafts and Zac Blairs of this world.
No intelligent golfer wants DJ or Bubba to hit it the same distance as Judge Smails. The long guy should be (and hopefully always will) be long. Long driving is a skill and I don’t want to bring the furthest hitting golfers back to the pack. I want the scale of the game to proportionately and universally reduce to a more manageable and responsible measure.
When balls go further, and courses are modified (rightly or wrongly) to preserve the intent / challenge / integrity – holes invariably get longer. Or skinnier. Back tees are added, and holes take longer to walk and play. A scenario which sees slow play more likely become a problem.
When holes are longer – they require more water. Which is becoming a more scarce and costly commodity in many corners of the world – a situation that will only worsen in times ahead.
Longer golf holes require more mowing, more chemicals and more man hours to maintain. Longer holes cost more money to build and maintain. Which all sees a round of golf get more expensive.
When balls go further, as they do today, errant shots go further offline. That’s true of professionals and amateurs alike. Many, many golfers hit it too far these days. Ask any architect who consults at an average suburban golf club with roads or houses nearby. 10% of regular golfers at these locations come into an architect’s safety considerations. Distances between centerlines and boundaries. Higher fences. Hole geometry. Netting. It all requires thought. Greater insurance premiums can result - due to balls endangering property and individuals outside the course. This sees that more land is required to lay out a course in attempts to avoid such issues.
Contemporary forces have conspired such that the scale of golf is often wrong today. And this situation will only increase in frequency in future, with stronger, faster, bigger golfers, accessing better instruction, better conditioning and TrackMan. These issues effect the amateur game just as much if not more than the professional Tours. The solution must therefore address the game as a whole. An intelligent, and responsible universal rollback of balls and/or clubs can potentially redress this.
-
Matthew
I know very little about equipment, but I have serious reservations that a meaningful rollback can be applied to Koepka like golfers without adversely effecting a significant percentage of rank and file golfers...which is mainly why I prefer bifurcation. If such a solution as you suggest exists, say 20% roll back for Brooks and 3% for golfers like myself...well then very fine...that is a good trade-off.
I am afraid given the reality of the golf demographic, asking most 50 somethings and above to give up anything more than a token percentage of distance so 1%ers don't bash the hell out of courses won't go down well. It smacks a bit of stuffing an opinion down the throats of what has been the back bone of the game for many years.
It would be interesting to know the capabilities of the average roll backer. I suspect they tend to be good to excellent golfers who can make up for lost yardage with better play around greens etc. Lets not forget, for the vast majority of male handicap golfers, it is becoming more and more apparent that 6200 yards (and I think this number can go much lower) and less is a more appropriate course length...for women I strongly suspect that number is maybe 5000ish yards. While the concerns of what is happening to the best courses on the planet are valid, it is hard to understand how that translates to average Joe. To me, it makes far more sense to dip the toe in the water with bifurcation then take a view after 5 years. In the meantime, clubs, owners and developers have the option to just say no to course alterations at the behest of the R&A, USGA, PGA. That isn't to say that will stop alterations, because I don't think it will, but its a start, just as bifurcation is.
Ciao
-
Sean,
If shorter hitters move forward a set of tees at the time the rollback, an onerously reduced ball doesn't have as marked an effect upon them. These golfers also play a shorter course, which is quicker to walk.
We already have several tees on every hole and competitive golfers / club members possess handicaps, so there are mechanisms in place to address problems encountered with initial days of implementing reduced flight balls.
And as Bobby Jones said - “we can move all our tees forward if we wish, without investing more money in costly land, but we cannot keep on moving them backwards.”
-
Of course our problem in Australia is we have no influence - because the game is run by the seemingly impotent USGA and R&A -whose role - whose purpose - in the equipment debate was to maintain the skill it took to play the game (something clearly diminished by the modern ball and the frying pan drivers) and to protect the great courses against exactly what has happened.
Mike Clayton,
I think "Oz" is the perfect location for this movement. In a different slice of life, I have studied big bureaucracies and they move very very slowly on purpose. I can't find it now, but I think the State of Indiana tried a "tournament ball" here in The States, but obviously it did not work. Or Google can't find it.
I agree with Rees that Augusta could fix this in one memo to participants, but until then, Oz is our best shot. Keep going!!
-
Mike, you may recall the words of Sandy Tatum in a GCA feature interview -
“A few years ago, Hootie Johnson had an impulse to create a ‘Masters Ball’ to deal with the distance factor that had intruded into the game … If he had carried it out it would have saved the game.”
-
I am confused as to why roll backers don't think equipment bifurcation is the better option to an across the board ball roll back. I say this for a few reasons
1. It is a form of compromise which will be more acceptable for most golfers.
2. The fear of having to alter courses, that is, mainly where tees will be placed and if so how far from greens, will be reduced.
3. Bifurcation may very well lead back to unification if and when golfers become convinced a roll back isn't the end of the world.
I understand a two ball spec may cause issues at the local club level, but with the world wide capping system coming online part of the issue isn't. Plus, part of a possible unification system down the road could by led by clubs having "elite" divisions in comps where non elite players choose to use a roll back ball. I can even imagine some clubs becoming elite, meaning if you join you do so knowing that comps use elite equipment regardless of handicap.
On the bigger picture, it's easy to make pro events and world amateur ranking events use elite rules roll back equipment.
Ciao
Good post
as an aside, it's shocking how many courses have gone to "irons only" on their range as a response to the few whose drivers have outgrown the range and done some damage, or they are worried about potential damage.
I don't fid it hypocritical to applaud discussion and seeking a solution/alternative, (rollback or bifurcation) while continuing to compete(barely) with modern equipment.
I would welcome an event where we used a shorter ball /equipment and played shorter tees, especially on classic courses that continually make a player walk backwards.(in theory the fairway would effectively be wider ;D )
As an aside, I'd bet the average length actually played at private courses has SHRUNK over the past 10 years due to the implementation of more forward men's tees that get used, than new back tees, that get used less.
Plus, the guys playing "one tee from the back" are often playing a SHORTER course than they once did, because perhaps not every hole has a new back pad, but a new set of back "tees" on a former, shorter pad.
-
Mike, you may recall the words of Sandy Tatum in a GCA feature interview -
“A few years ago, Hootie Johnson had an impulse to create a ‘Masters Ball’ to deal with the distance factor that had intruded into the game … If he had carried it out it would have saved the game.”
Matthew
I respect your intent to raise the topic in a respectful and informative fashion but I have to say that comment from Tatum is complete and utter bollocks. The world will keep turning and golf will go on if the pro's routinely shoot 59's. To suggest the game will be ruined just shows how short sighted he is.
Anyway why not just let the pro's shoot 59 ?
Niall
-
Sean,
If shorter hitters move forward a set of tees at the time the rollback, an onerously reduced ball doesn't have as marked an effect upon them. These golfers also play a shorter course, which is quicker to walk.
We already have several tees on every hole and competitive golfers / club members possess handicaps, so there are mechanisms in place to address problems encountered with initial days of implementing reduced flight balls.
And as Bobby Jones said - “we can move all our tees forward if we wish, without investing more money in costly land, but we cannot keep on moving them backwards.”
Matt
It seems to me we are way behind the 8 ball in terms of tees. Walking forward is a better solution compared to walking backwards. Best of all is walking off a green 20 yards to a tee. This is essentially what we now have on the courses which did not overly give into the mantra of keeping up with the next door neighbour. I am not naive enough to think all courses can be this way, but why threaten t6what in real terms is a huge percentage of courses which work just fine (except for women golfers in many cases) for the sake of the courses which did chase after the long ball?
This is an extremely complicated situation which, imo, can only be solved in smaller steps. What we don't want to do is throw out the baby with the bath water over principles. A roll back in golf is a novel concept which needs clear up to date thinking rather than going back to opinions and principles of an age in which none of those people experienced what we now do. That isn't to say we can't learn from history, only that the answers to the specific problem being discussed does not not lie in history.
Ciao
-
If shorter hitters move forward a set of tees at the time the rollback, an onerously reduced ball doesn't have as marked an effect upon them. These golfers also play a shorter course, which is quicker to walk.
And as Bobby Jones said - “we can move all our tees forward if we wish, without investing more money in costly land, but we cannot keep on moving them backwards.”
Matthew:
To your first point, it isn't necessarily so. One problem with modern courses is that forward tee players have to walk almost as far as those playing the stretched-out back tees, if the back tee is the one closest to the previous green. Anyway, there are 35,000 courses that are laid out the way they are, and changing how far the ball goes does not in itself change the length of the walk.
To your last point - Bobby Jones said that? Where and when? I know Mr. Dye said it, but he didn't quote Jones.
-
This is an extremely complicated situation which, imo, can only be solved in smaller steps. What we don't want to do is throw out the baby with the bath water over principles. A roll back in golf is a novel concept which needs clear up to date thinking rather than going back to opinions and principles of an age in which none of those people experienced what we now do. That isn't to say we can't learn from history, only that the answers to the specific problem being discussed does not not lie in history.
Sean:
Jesus, man, you sound like Amy Klobuchar [or any of the corporate-owned Democrats] talking about health insurance, or stretching out the increase of the minimum wage to ten years. Although I suspect you aren't being paid as much as they are to say it.
I do agree with you, though, that just rolling back the distance on a long drive will not fix everything that has changed about golf in the fifty years since I started playing. It's a complex equation with many variables. And unfortunately, some of the biggest players in the game have a profit motive in the outcome.
-
Golf has been dithering and procrastinating over this matter for far too long. The world has changed at a quicker pace over the last few decades though and as it has so outside influences have come more to the fore (no pun intended), ie land use, water use, safety etc.
The game needs to stop the dithering and procrastinating so I applaud attempts like this one emanating from Melbourne to move things forward for otherwise pretty soonish outside factors, agencies and influences will change the game for us and I’d rather golfers changed the game themselves than non-golfers with their own agendas.
And simple answers are usually the best.
Atb
-
Mike, you may recall the words of Sandy Tatum in a GCA feature interview -
“A few years ago, Hootie Johnson had an impulse to create a ‘Masters Ball’ to deal with the distance factor that had intruded into the game … If he had carried it out it would have saved the game.”
Matthew
I respect your intent to raise the topic in a respectful and informative fashion but I have to say that comment from Tatum is complete and utter bollocks. The world will keep turning and golf will go on if the pro's routinely shoot 59's. To suggest the game will be ruined just shows how short sighted he is.
Anyway why not just let the pro's shoot 59 ?
Niall
Niall,
When are people going to understand scoring is a complete distraction from the issue - which is how great courses play versus how they were intended to play? Holes meant to be true three shooters reduced to drives and 4 irons. Long two- shooters to drives and wedges. Par 3s testing 'wooden club play' down to 4 and 5 irons.
Anyone can manipulate the dimensions of a course - both with speedy greens, narrow fairways and high green grass - but it doesn't solve the problem and it makes for much worse golf.
-
When are people going to understand scoring is a complete distraction from the issue - which is how great courses play versus how they were intended to play? Holes meant to be true three shooters reduced to drives and 4 irons. Long two- shooters to drives and wedges. Par 3s testing 'wooden club play' down to 4 and 5 irons.
Anyone can manipulate the dimensions of a course - both with speedy greens, narrow fairways and high green grass - but it doesn't solve the problem and it makes for much worse golf.
I would add in one more element - accuracy. When I grew up, George Izett was the gold standard:
(https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/352539223774_/PERSIMMON-George-Izett-Hand-Made-Model-440-Lady.jpg)
But if you did not hit it literally "between the screws", the ball was way left or way right. And that was when we had trees!!
Now my 23 year old son has my DNA and he is 50 yards past me for a bunch of reasons. However the the fact that he has ONLY swung hard all of his golf life is part of it. The new technology had made drivers to be very accurate and long:
(http://www.mygolfspy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/persimmon-data2.gif)
https://mygolfspy.com/mygolfspy-labs-persimmon-vs-your-titanium-driver/
-
Mike,
I'm not convinced they are more accurate. I see massive wides now - from strong, usually youngish, players who smash it but with little awareness of the clubface. They good drives are amazing - which convinces them the club is good - but the bad ones are horrific and normally way,way right. Or a low duck hook which is essentially the same shot.
For me they are no less or no more accurate - but the mishits are much better disguised!
-
Mike, you may recall the words of Sandy Tatum in a GCA feature interview -
“A few years ago, Hootie Johnson had an impulse to create a ‘Masters Ball’ to deal with the distance factor that had intruded into the game … If he had carried it out it would have saved the game.”
Matthew
I respect your intent to raise the topic in a respectful and informative fashion but I have to say that comment from Tatum is complete and utter bollocks. The world will keep turning and golf will go on if the pro's routinely shoot 59's. To suggest the game will be ruined just shows how short sighted he is.
Anyway why not just let the pro's shoot 59 ?
Niall
Niall,
When are people going to understand scoring is a complete distraction from the issue - which is how great courses play versus how they were intended to play? Holes meant to be true three shooters reduced to drives and 4 irons. Long two- shooters to drives and wedges. Par 3s testing 'wooden club play' down to 4 and 5 irons.
Anyone can manipulate the dimensions of a course - both with speedy greens, narrow fairways and high green grass - but it doesn't solve the problem and it makes for much worse golf.
This is partly what I mean. If the goal is to indescriminately revive original architectural intent it's going to be a tail chasing exercise whose goal may not even be properly understood. Or worse, maybe its not a good goal or maybe that goal is only good for a very small percentage of golfers.
Ciao
-
Mike
re your post 29, I disagree on a couple of levels, firstly that length isn't driving whatever changes are going on - I appreciate that's not your point but it is most often the reason for making changes is it not ? As to your point, or what I think is your point, that we should all be playing like 20 or 30 years ago with the same shot values etc. for us normal humans who don't have the superlative golfing skills that you do, having a lot more half par holes because of technology is far more enjoyable than standard length.
For example, when it comes to a par 5, 9 times out of 10, a par 5 where you've got a chance of getting home in 2 is far more enjoyable than one where you can't. GCA's seem to have discovered the principle of that with more short driveable (for some) par 4's etc. but still seem to be a slave overall to a particular number in terms of par or length of course.
Niall
-
Niall,
No doubt the holes to have benefited from the ball going further are the dangerous and interesting short 4s because they are now reachable for many and subsequently more dangerous - and more fun. Likewise really interesting par 5s. But at the same time the greatness that is the essence of Augusta 13 is lost for the best players in the world.
The disappointing thing is the 'other' holes. The stout two-shot holes where the intention was to test long second shots. And the great 3 shotters where the long second is interesting - St Andrews 14 for example or Carnoustie 6. For great players the game shouldn't lose the point of those holes.
That it took Dustin Johnson until September (2017 I think) to hit a 6 into into a par 4 is something of a concern on so may levels.
Plus - my view has always been the game should be bifurcated - as it was for 50 plus years with the small and big ball. The best thing that could happen would be for a manufacturer to somehow make a ball for short hitters (carry under 150y) that went noticeably further.
-
This is an interesting conversation on many levels...
I've long held the stance that we should ignore the best players interaction with architecture and recognize how small a percentage they are. I stand by that as an overriding navigator for my position in these conversations. In fact, they seemingly do everything they can to avoid the architecture...
Once you get below the elite level (Sponsored Tours and Top 50 NCAA Division 1), I see every reason in the world to focus on course presentation and minor tweaks to the architecture as the long term course of action to retain relevance, challenge and interest.
That said, I fully agree with our recently departed Rihc Goodale's unification theory (or something similar) in which he posited that a mandated rollback at that elite level would result, eventually, in a reunification because for one reason or another everyone would eventually play the reduced distance equipment.
Matt Mollica and Mike Clayton - if a substantial rollback is issued this winter from the R&A/USGA, which class of golfers do you think will be the first to regain their lost distance?
I propose it will be the Tour guys because they have the resources and motivation...what then?
[/size][size=78%] [/size]
-
8) ???
I signed on ! ball goes too far
-
I may begin to buy into the rollback theory if it is ever championed by someone who is not on the downstroke of their skill level.
-
I may begin to buy into the rollback theory if it is ever championed by someone who is not on the downstroke of their skill level.
Won't happen unless they do. The only reason the 1.62-in ball was abandoned was because the top American players didn't want to switch back and forth for The Open. The movement was from the inside.
-
I have made the transition from long hitter to old man enjoying the game as much as ever partly because of back tees 1,000 yds beyond where I play. It would feel selfish to me to make younger players move up to my tees through bifurcation. I had my day.
-
It is very positive that more and more people think about this and that it eventually forces USGA and R&A to address it. At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.
-
At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.
Isn’t it already stopped? I think for 15+ years now...
-
The only bifurcation that will ever work is the one that lets baby boomers hit the ball even further. We control the marketplace and the memberships.
-
At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.
Isn’t it already stopped? I think for 15+ years now...
So did most guys on Tour hit it this far 15+ years ago?
I don't care about the overall driving distance stats -- when there are plenty of guys whose carry distance is further than what their Tour average is, the numbers must be manipulated somehow.
-
With all the concessions we give millennials to join our clubs: i.e. Jeans, untucked shirts, music, etc, etc... Does anyone really believe that a rolled back ball specific course will appeal to these guys?
-
Jim - it’s all due to better athletes being in better condition than ever before. If Tiger in his prime (back about 15 years ago) was a ‘10’ in this regard, today’s long hitting golfers like Justin Thomas are 11s.
-
Mike,
I'm not convinced they are more accurate. I see massive wides now - from strong, usually youngish, players who smash it but with little awareness of the clubface. They good drives are amazing - which convinces them the club is good - but the bad ones are horrific and normally way,way right. Or a low duck hook which is essentially the same shot.
For me they are no less or no more accurate - but the mishits are much better disguised!
Are not the mistakes disguised by the ball? Topflites always went straighter than balata. The modern driver just amplifies the mistakes.
-
At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.
Isn’t it already stopped? I think for 15+ years now...
So did most guys on Tour hit it this far 15+ years ago?
I don't care about the overall driving distance stats -- when there are plenty of guys whose carry distance is further than what their Tour average is, the numbers must be manipulated somehow.
Seems longer, a few numbers from PGA Tour site
2019:
# of players who average 300 or more off the tee: 49
Median Avg = 294 yards
2004:
# of players who averaged 300 or more off the tee: 15
Median Avg = 287 yards
-
Jim - it’s all due to better athletes being in better condition than ever before. If Tiger in his prime (back about 15 years ago) was a ‘10’ in this regard, today’s long hitting golfers like Justin Thomas are 11s.
Yep, those Champions Tour players in such great shape in their 50's and 60's hitting it further than when they were in their 20's and 30's. Nothing to do with equipment.
-
At the very least, I am in favor of a decision that stops technology at where it is today. No idea on how to achieve it.
Isn’t it already stopped? I think for 15+ years now...
15 years older, play less, practice less and hit it further than ever. I dont believe it has stopped.
-
Everyone that plays for a living today hits it further than they did 15 years ago...Everyone!
But none of that is because of Ball or Driver Face CoR.
I know they're using a different metric now for Driver faces, but the limits were set in ~2002 and have not been exceeded.
The period from 1995 - 2002 was undoubtedly overwhelming from a distance perspective for top players, I don't dispute that.
The distance gained in these 15 years is primarily the result of optimization, which continues to evolve and includes swing technique (see Molinari and Mickelson articles in GD), individual fitness efforts, agronomy to a small degree and a key factor in my opinion is that Tour courses are set up for entertainment. They are set up to encourage smashing the driver.
-
Since this post has evolved (fallen?) into a discussion of the options for reducing ball flight, let me weigh in.
The ball is not going too far for 99.9% of golfers in this country. Let's not confuse the issue by equating the ball flight of pros and elite amateurs to that of the weekend golfer. Maybe the regular player is hitting the ball potentially a bit farther than before, but that is the allure of the game--and the game needs that to keep these golfers attracted to it.
Second, for there to be bifurcation, there needs to be a buy in from the professional tours. It is very clear that we aren't going to get that. In fact, the tours have seemed to indicate that they will split from the USGA/R&A if they try to limit ball distance. So bifurcation will not work.
Why not do what earlier posters on here have recommended--let the top .1% of golfers shoot whatever they can? So what, if they shoot 55-60? I, for one, could care less. Courses in America are only hurting themselves and their members by trying to fit their courses to the game played by a very small number of extraordinary golfers. The average golfer needs to take the game back by just ignoring what the pros and elite amateurs shoot. Save the game by making it attractive for the regular golfers.
-
Just graphed out Distance averages on tour for the last 40 years. While the slope of the line was steepest from the mid 90s thru the mid 2000s, the line is still trending up. I'll post the chart later today....
-
Zac Blair just made it back on tour hitting it like like 5% of us.
-
Kalen, connect the dots for me--Why do you think that the distance that pros and a very few amateurs hit the ball creates a crisis for the game as played by 99%+ of the golfers who play the game like us?
-
Everyone that plays for a living today hits it further than they did 15 years ago...Everyone!
But none of that is because of Ball or Driver Face CoR.
The distance gained in these 15 years is primarily the result of optimization, which continues to evolve and includes swing technique (see Molinari and Mickelson articles in GD), individual fitness efforts, agronomy to a small degree and a key factor in my opinion is that Tour courses are set up for entertainment. They are set up to encourage smashing the driver.
I don't understand your argument here.
We seem to agree that optimization / fitness / etc. have all combined to produce distance gains. And maybe the ball and the driver face haven't changed much in 15 years, I really don't know or care.
But if guys are 10-20 yards longer than the already outsized distances they got to in 2002, are we not allowed to roll the ball back so they hit to the same places as before? Is whatever test they designed in 2002 grandfathered in for perpetuity?
-
Zac Blair just made it back on tour hitting it like like 5% of us.
But, Zac could not keep his card in his previous stint on Tour, hitting it that far -- which was based on a lot bigger sample size.
-
Kalen, connect the dots for me--Why do you think that the distance that pros and a very few amateurs hit the ball creates a crisis for the game as played by 99%+ of the golfers who play the game like us?
I'm not sure its a crisis, but I think it has a ripple effect in the weekend game due to the "we covet what we see" phenomena.
The two main issues as I see it:
- More expensive golf due to buying more land. with higher build costs and increased maintenance budgets.
- Longer rounds from people insisting on playing the back tees who have no business being there.
Higher green fees and increased round times are probably the two primary things killing golf right now....
-
Sorry,
I've played golf over 50 years now and golf has never been cheaper or more accessible.
-
Sorry,
I've played golf over 50 years now and golf has never been cheaper or more accessible.
John,
I won't doubt its more accessible, but cheaper and quicker to play, I don't think so....
-
Kalen, I agree with your two main issues. Longer courses are more expensive--and rounds take longer on longer courses. But why do we need to change the equipment to deal with that, thereby decreasing the attractiveness of the game for the regular golfer?
I don't believe we should make a major overhaul to our game due to the "covet" issue alone. Don't lengthen the courses--just let pros shoot whatever they can. And don't allow regular golfers to play longer tees--or just don't build them.
We can't let the .1% of golfers dictate what happens to the 99.9%. And we can't ignore the impact on the attraction of the game we play from potentially shortening ball flight for all of us.
I just think the "tail is wagging the dog" in this argument.
-
I'd love to know how many Roll Back dudes play 100 rounds a year. It's just barking from the peanut section.
-
Being old enough to grow up on Titleist Tour Balata's and then Titleist Professionals (Although I still think the Dunlop DDH HT-100's were still the best of the balata balls) along with various Top Flites and the like. I think the it's safe to say that the entire physics of the game have changed in some very fundamental ways and distance is just one of the outcomes affected.
With the spinny balls I think there was much more of an emphasis on compressing the ball and managing ball flight via both spin rate and launch angle. The new balls are primarily about launch angle with spin more of a function of the urethane covers grabbing the grooves on the shorter irons.
Besides the amount of back-spin that is no longer in the game (no more of the pretty rising shots off of woods and long irons) there is also a decrease in the amount of side spin imparted through the gear effect of the decompression for heel-toe misses. Misses around the sweet spot are penalized less for amateurs and given the dispersion pattern of the top players almost not at all. Admittedly some of this is due to the club's optimized weight distribution but I'm convinced that most is due to the balls lowered spin rates.
These changes fundamentally changed the way that the game is taught and played. The spinny ball acted as a natural governor of distance through the uncontrollable act of over-compressing and hence over-spinning the ball. I knew younger players that had very high club head speeds back in the early and mid 1980's that were stuck between over-spinning the wound balls or else having to play the old rock-flites. The top-flite type of two-piece surlyn would not over-compress but you could not consistently control them into and around the greens. If you were going to swing at very high club head speeds with the spinny wound balls your margin for error shrank quickly (hence why young Greg Norman's driving back then was so revered).
I believe that it would be possible to put more spin back into the ball either by regulating a minimum amount of deformation and spin due to decompression to more replicate the performance of the wound balls. Total distance when perfectly struck might not be brought down that much but penalties for mishits at high swing speeds would be enhanced. Mandating a slightly less efficient dimple pattern (less overall coverage) could also be used to create sharper movement and less total distance.
I'm less concerned with total distance than adding some challenge back to swinging at very high clubhead speeds. Performance at slower clubhead speeds should not be affected much.
-
Kalen, I agree with your two main issues. Longer courses are more expensive--and rounds take longer on longer courses. But why do we need to change the equipment to deal with that, thereby decreasing the attractiveness of the game for the regular golfer?
I don't believe we should make a major overhaul to our game due to the "covet" issue alone. Don't lengthen the courses--just let pros shoot whatever they can. And don't allow regular golfers to play longer tees--or just don't build them.
We can't let the .1% of golfers dictate what happens to the 99.9%. And we can't ignore the impact on the attraction of the game we play from potentially shortening ball flight for all of us.
I just think the "tail is wagging the dog" in this argument.
Jim Hoak:
Do you work for a golf equipment company? You've got their b.s. down pat. Divide and conquer.
It all falls apart if you consider that a lot of people enjoy golf because it's hard. And the others would be happy to move up a couple hundred yards to play from there . . . after all, that's where most courses were designed to play from in the first place.
-
Tom, you know me. At least we’ve met several times. And you know I have no ties to any equipment company.
I’m just someone concerned that we not make the game any less attractive to the great majority of golfers!
I’m just sick of people thinking the game of golf needs to be driven by what pros do.
-
The ball is going so far these days that I’m far from convinced that the eyes of the player hitting the shot are able to see it come down nor see who may be standing near where it’s going to land. And I’m not just thinking tour golf here, club players too, especially in iffy visibility conditions.
Surely it’s preferable that the golf authorities self restrict the game than have non-golfing insurance and legal and political folks impose restrictions on the game?
Atb
-
Clubs who are fighting lawsuits/ installing perimeter netting/ spending to lengthen/ etc. probably don’t even know there’s a problem....
-
Jim,
To answer your previous post, I think only two changes are needed to get going in the right direction.
1) Bifurcate the rules: Specific and detailed for the .1%'ers in top notch competition, and simplicity for everyone else.
2) Introduce a flight/behavior limited PGATour ball for all sanctioned events.
And of course continue to re-evaluate and tweak as needed...
-
Kalen, I totally agree with you. But how will that happen? The Pro Tours are opposed to it. And the rule-making authorities can’t impose it on the pros. So don’t look to the USGA or R&A.
-
Why change the rules for golfers who won't play by the rules?
-
And we can't ignore the impact on the attraction of the game we play from potentially shortening ball flight for all of us.
I just think the "tail is wagging the dog" in this argument.
Jim,
What the vast majority of American golfers forget - or, more likely, never knew - was the whole of the golf world outside of the American continent - pretty willingly gave up 25 yards when they fell in line with the USA and adopted the 1.68' ball.
Taking yardage away doesn't have to kill the game of people's enjoyment of it.
-
I signed up.
Do I get a Kassnar, a Buoy, or a Tom Cat ball?*
*attempt at humor for anyone who remembers those balls.
https://picclick.com/12-Vintage-1960s-Gray-Goose-Plymouth-TOM-CAT-391751901665.html
-
Kalen, I agree with your two main issues. Longer courses are more expensive--and rounds take longer on longer courses. But why do we need to change the equipment to deal with that, thereby decreasing the attractiveness of the game for the regular golfer?
...
The attractiveness of the game is not in $400 drivers and $5 golf balls. It is in the play of the game, which can be done without the latest greatest unnecessary equipment. If the equipment is rolled back, it is still an attractive game. The game boomed before the equipment went overboard.
-
It’s not just Tour Pros who are making a mockery of the game, there are now players at most every Club that play a completely different game. At one of my Clubs we have a pudgy kid named Kevin shot a 28 on the front nine a couple of months ago. He made 6 birdies and an eagle on a 6,400 yard course. He shot 37 on the back nine and after adding his +4 he carded off with a 7 handicap and lost to his 76! He made 8 birdies this month. He played golf for Cal State San Marcos which is hardly high level College Golf! Golf is just so much easier when you hit a wedge into every par 4 and long irons into par 5’s. So the issue no longer extends to just Tour Pros, there are players at every level that just play a completely different game!
-
This is clearly an issue on which many golfers have a strong opinion. It is a complex issue, and not a purely objective one. As evidenced by several 20+ page threads on the topic within golfclubatlas. And as often happens in golf, many view the topic through the prism of their own games and experiences.
As a starting point, I do not think burgeoning distance gains are an issue solely affecting the professional game. This is not some meaningless, esoteric action aimed at a tiny fraction of elite golfers. When some of the game’s sharpest minds espoused limits on the ball, they did so well before WWII and they were not talking solely about the professional game either.
This point goes some way to explaining why I prefer a universal rollback, as opposed to the implementation of a reduced flight ball solely for professional use. The problems extend beyond the pro game, and will more obviously do so as time marches on. Speed based instruction, current specs of contemporary balls and clubs, the increasing use of Trackman, and human evolution with subsequent generations taller and stronger than those before will only amplify the issue of distance in the coming years.
This is obviously an issue which needs a long-view and a broad perspective.
The Rollback subject includes many elements – responsible use of resources, cost of play, safety and liability, speed of play, appropriate stewardship of the game, the role of professional golf in shaping the game as a whole, the place of large equipment manufacturers, and other points.
The increasing ease of play afforded beginners and modestly skilled golfers by modern clubs and balls has not translated into greater numbers playing golf. Neither has there been a reduction in average handicap, nor an increase in youth participation, nor greater numbers of women participating in golf. And this is in the era of Golf Channel and Tiger Woods and a healthy LPGA. The notion that a rollback in ball distance will adversely affect participation rates in dubious at best. And as Robert Hunter noted a century ago - “It is not the love of something easy which has drawn men like a magnet for hundreds of years to this royal and ancient pastime; on the contrary, it is the maddening difficulty of it”.
There is no question a great number of golf clubs around the world have faced significant and costly safety and liability issues, which would be assuaged to a large degree by a reduced flight ball. This is not a problem confined to the professional game – a solution applied to the professional game in insolation does nothing to address this.
The way golf is played has changed. And has changed repeatedly through the generations. Not many of us would expect it to stay static, but golf is steadily becoming a game in which we smash a tee shot high and far, and then hit a lofted iron close. Golf used to be much more than this. For many, golf used to require more thought. It still does for many, but not as many as it once did.
For a very long time, golf required more decision making and skill than it does for many players today. Not just in the professional game. Strength and distance have always been an advantage, and should continue to be, but these qualities have become disproportionately advantageous at the professional level, elite amateur level, and even sub-elite amateur level in many instances. This trend will only become more apparent in times ahead.
Those who are in charge of the game must consider whether the game should continue to devolve along these lines, or whether equipment regulation reform is warranted and importantly, able to arrest this trend. Martin Slumbers (R&A Chief) recently suggested that “the purpose of the Rules is to protect golf’s best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game”. I applaud this notion and see a rollback as consistent with this philosophy.
I am surprised the professional Tour ranks have been so amiable to the homogenisation of their product. The uniformity and narrowing of skill set possessed at the top end of pro ranks can’t be to their advantage in the long-term. In another thread on GCA Tom Doak quoted Justin Leonard who spoke of the inability to compete in this day and age unless one can carry the ball 320. The disappearance of a variety of playing styles has no doubt been to the detriment of the pro game as an entertainment product. The pro game has never been more removed from the amateur game and history will ultimately tell whether this has been to the long-term commercial advantage of the Tour. It’s almost certainly not to the advantage of the game at large.
Those in charge of the various Tours have much to gain from a rollback, yet they don’t see it. Perhaps they’re not allowed to see it by virtue of the efforts of ball manufacturers. Tour adoption of reduced flight balls would not only paint them as responsible stewards of the game, but also see a stage on which skill shone more brightly, and the most skilled players more readily triumphed. Scope would exist for a variety of playing styles to have a chance of winning. The entertainment product would be more compelling, rich and diverse.
What’s more, distance doesn’t sell as much as people think it does. It’s just a number, and it’s all relative. No fan at a tournament can differentiate between a drive of 285 and 340. Golf highlight reels are full of wedge shots to inches, successful long putts, holed bunker shots and chip ins. They’re not full of bludgeoned drives that land out of sight – no matter how hard the PGA Tour social media team try to make it so. In any event, universal rollback where Martin Bonnar drives it 185 and Mike Cirba drives it 200, on a 5040yd course, while Bubba Watson drives it 285 on a 6350yd course preserves a frame of reference to which fans still relate. Pro performance will be no less impressive.
Jim Hoak raises many good points – Tours are in the entertainment industry. Rollback won’t happen without the Tours being on board. Tours and pro players will only be on board if the manufacturers are for it – and they must be comforted that profit risk is mitigated during the process. Long sunset clauses for existing balls are the tip of the iceberg.
Monkey see – monkey do. Rank and file golfers buy the ball professional players use. Universal rollback sees this as a more likely series of events, whereas bifurcation may be less likely to cushion any possible financial blow to the Titleists of this world.
I’ve not been focused on this topic for as many years as other GCA posters, but to date, not one person has provided me with a sound list of inevitable problems encountered by universal introduction of a shorter flying ball, and many short-hitting recreational golfers collectively moving up a set of tees. Other than potential profit endangerment for major ball manufacturers.
And I want to hear the problems, because I need to know the counter arguments that will emerge as the Rollback Alliance effort escalates. Smaller footprint courses requiring less maintenance and less acres of prepared turf and less irrigation, are one of several benefits from responsible governance of the game today and a shorter flying ball. More affordable golf and faster rounds may also ensue. Contemplating these factors should demonstrate to anyone who has followed this thread that a rollback is not a meaningless undertaking directed at a tiny minority who play the game for vast sums of money.
This whole topic is way beyond what scores people shoot, new back tees at TPC Scottsdale, strategy or how far the top few on the US PGA Tour drive it. Distance is an urgent and universal topic in the game of golf. I’m genuinely surprised more on the forum don’t see that.
George Crump, William Flynn, MacKenzie and Hunter, Tillinghast, Nicklaus, Longhurst, Bobby Jones, Sandy Tatum, Bill Campbell, Ben Crenshaw, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Tiger Woods, Shackelford and more. They’ve all said the same thing.
That’s probably enough for now, but, consistent with the opening post of the thread on Rollback Alliance, this provides further thoughts, and a broad-brush picture of the thoughts of many, but not all within our group.
-
I have a more positive take on what a roll back would represent for manufacturers and the TOUR.
Having worked for a large equipment manufacturer it's no surprise that any type of roll back or bifurcation on equipment - drivers, metalwoods, ball, etc. - is feared due to revenue risk. The number of golfers is flat to down every year, technology is at the point of marginal gains and the marketing stories get more and more ludicrous. Having PGA TOUR pros play a different
"short flight" ball would crush the OEMs so they're lobbying like energy companies facing undeniable climate change science.
Even if technology doesn't improve anymore, younger generations will continue to shorten the length of courses due to the understanding and measurement of biomechanics (through video, launch monitors, etc.) along with the ability to specifically personalize clubs, especially metalwoods, through TrackMan and head/shaft combinations to optimize launch conditions and spin. That is where the BIG gain has occurred in the last decade.
A large number of "millennial" golfers whom I worked with in the industry were taught to swing out of their shoes at a young age because of the larger faced drivers and lower spinning balls. None of them were even close to making it on TOUR, but many of them could hit the ball as long or longer than TOUR Pros because it's really all about swing speed with the driver and these guys could go really low on a good day playing "bomb and gauge."
100 vs 110 vs 120 mph driver SS provides a DRASTIC difference in distance with a properly fit club and ball. If you are swinging around 100 then you're probably driving it around 250 to 260 IF OPTIMIZED but if you are swinging around 115 to 120 (which is a normal "athletic" swing for college kids and younger pros) you can be CARRYING the ball 300+ and keeping it in play which is obviously a massive advantage.
With the ability to manipulate CT across the face with metalwoods and irons, manufacturers have created 3 woods that high swing speed golfers can now hit over 300 yards as well. Henrik Stenson's magical Diablo and Rory's M 3 wood are just two examples, and this all started with RBZ 6 years ago and most people weren't optimizing their head/shaft combination then. Jason Day was also shown in ads hitting the M2 4 iron 250+ yards.
Swing Speed + Technology + Club Fitting = Obsolete Courses for a growing number of golfers.
The ball is obviously the most obvious issue, but just having a shorter flight or higher spinning ball probably won't solve the problem.
The high handicap golfer has received the least amount of benefit from modern technology which is why I wonder if bifurcation is the optimal solution. If the USGA and R&A rolled back the rules on balls and clubs, then the equipment companies would be in the same place they are now - competing for marginal gains, and golfers would be in the same place they are now - purchasing what the pros are playing in the hopes of finding free strokes (unsuccessfully).
Manufacturer revenue would go up initially as golfers transition away from their illegal clubs and golf balls (lottery time) and then it would be back to normal business trying to eek out gains playing within the new rules.
If you go back and watch some of the old Shell Wonderful World of Golf episodes it's pretty compelling to witness some of the best pros in the world hitting absolute garbage tee shots after missing the sweet spot on their persimmon drivers and having to skillfully recover from the boondocks. Then in contrast, watching Hogan put on a total ball striking clinic hitting every fairway and green. Golf was a game of skill and all about ball control, in every facet of the game.
Tiger Woods didn't happen because of technology and he would have been even more dominant if technology hadn't evolved rapidly during the early 2000's allowing other less skilled Pros to pick up distance. Golf didn't grow in the early 2000's because of technology, it grew because of Tiger.
The increases in technology prevent golf from having more stand out stars which significantly benefits the game. Nobody cares if a no name automaton pro wins a tournament and that is happening more and more often because of how technology levels the playing field with high swing speed golfers.
The entertainment value on the PGA Tour would absolutely increase if technology was rolled back. 5 irons into greens versus Wedges - Yes please! Never mind the fact that more interesting courses could host tournaments, fewer resources would be required for course maintenance across the spectrum, etc.
I can still remember caddying at a Pro-Am where Christy O'Connor and Liam Higgins were hitting from the Medal Tees which were about 10 to 20 yards behind the Member Tees on average. The group wandered the course together having a great chat all round. Today "the tips" are in a different zip code from the members tees and for what? Nothing about golf is more interesting now than it was 20+ years ago. In fact, it's much less interesting because pros and ams are playing a different game entirely.
-
Matt - do you agree that if the major professional tours were on board with a roll back this could happen quite easily?
If so, what would you say to Jay Monahan and Keith Pelley if you had them in a room? What's the sales pitch to guys that have their bread buttered by the growth and interest in the game?
-
Since this post has evolved (fallen?) into a discussion of the options for reducing ball flight, let me weigh in.
The ball is not going too far for 99.9% of golfers in this country. Let's not confuse the issue by equating the ball flight of pros and elite amateurs to that of the weekend golfer. Maybe the regular player is hitting the ball potentially a bit farther than before, but that is the allure of the game--and the game needs that to keep these golfers attracted to it.
Second, for there to be bifurcation, there needs to be a buy in from the professional tours. It is very clear that we aren't going to get that. In fact, the tours have seemed to indicate that they will split from the USGA/R&A if they try to limit ball distance. So bifurcation will not work.
Why not do what earlier posters on here have recommended--let the top .1% of golfers shoot whatever they can? So what, if they shoot 55-60? I, for one, could care less. Courses in America are only hurting themselves and their members by trying to fit their courses to the game played by a very small number of extraordinary golfers. The average golfer needs to take the game back by just ignoring what the pros and elite amateurs shoot. Save the game by making it attractive for the regular golfers.
+1 to Jim's post.
Who cares what a pros score is? Lengthen your course at your own risk & cost, if you choose to. Better equipment adds to enjoyment for 99% of golfers. Top players will always beat average players, regardless of equipment. Equipment manufacturers will not allow or support rollback or bifurcation. They want to sell us all the same equipment that their pros play. Golf rules bodies fear loss of control if average golfers & manufacturers decide to simply ignore rolled back equipment rules.
-
Would bifurcation lead to less endorsement money for the pros if it meant that we no longer play the same equipment as them? Gonna be hard to get the boys to back that. Game over.
-
If everything is somehow dialed back 20%, the manufacturers will still want Rors hawking their Driver...wedge not so much!
Bifurcation would be temporary anyway.
-
If there is a competition ball do you believe they pros will be paid as well to play it?
-
No, but I’m against split rules so I was talking about a full roll back
-
No, but I’m against split rules so I was talking about a full roll back
That we can agree. No bifurcation.
-
I agree with Jim - Bifurcation will absolutely not work for several reasons:
1) NGF (National Golf Foundation) studies show that "active" golfers are not interested in playing products that are "illegal" which is why equipment companies that have created illegal drivers, golf balls that only fly straight, etc. are a non-factor in the industry
2) Furthermore, by and large, "active" golfers are interested in playing what the pros are playing, and obviously equipment manufacturers are VERY interested in amateur golfers playing the same equipment as professionals so their product can be endorsed
Long putters, box grooves, etc. all went by the wayside when the USGA and R&A change the rules to "protect the game." The exact same thing would happen with clubs and golf balls.
In fact, equipment companies would have a significant ramp in sales in "Year 1" of the rules change. My guess is followed by steady sales in following years as the "marginal gains" marketing game continues as it does now.
From an equipment standpoint I wonder where the right "roll back" point is though:
The combination of improved club head and shaft technology along with launch monitors make the club aspect of a roll back challenging. Heads would need to shrink but more importantly faces would need to be regulated as I assume graphite shafts could not be "outlawed" and neither would launch monitors for fittings so golfers could still get "dialed" post roll back including the pros. Having to fit pro golfers with steel shafts and smaller heads with lower CT and forgiveness across the face would make optimization more difficult for them resulting in a loss of distance and, more importantly, consistency on off center strikes.
So obviously the golf ball is the most important change and that has to do with increasing the spin rates which is the biggest factor in distance. Currently golf balls are constructed with cores, mantles and covers that benefit different parts of the game from the tee, through irons and pitching, chipping, putting. Manufacturers can create any recipe they want which is actually good for a roll back - There could be higher spinning balls similar to the old Balatas or maybe the Professional that pros and top Ams would play and less spinning models focused on average golfers that provide distance with less spin.
17/1700 is the optimal mix of launch and spin with 14 to 15 and 2,000 to 2,500 being fairly common amongst professionals and top ams hitting the ball 300+ yards off the tee.
If a rollback combination of ball and clubs occurred that set the floor on driver spin at about 3,000 RPM (data needs vetting) and also minimized CT at impact off the club face then average driving distance for pros would come down appropriately.
Amateurs would notice a much more negligible change with the roll back than pros.
Everyone would move up a set of tees or two. Or at a minimum, courses wouldn't need to be lengthened anymore.
-
Rob, A few counterpoints.
#1) I don't understand this point. Current "legal" clubs will still be allowed for 99.9% of golfers. They will only be potentially banned for professional and top notch Am play. This is one of the primary reasons to bifurcate.
#2) I think the average joe mostly just want to play like the pros play, and therefore buy what they play as a means to that end. So if they want to use a limited flight ball, then so be it, but it won't be helping them.
-
Even with a rollback the manufacturers ought to still sell loads of golf balls coz we’ll still loose plenty of them! And they’ll probably figure out a way to charge more for them too.
As to clubs, if the rollback were untaken one way, ie softer more spinny balls, then the high lofted fairway metals and hybrids many have filled their bags with over the years should be semi-redundant and sales of long irons ought to go up as better player want them back in their bags once again. And a Driver size/performance rollback ought to mean lots of new sales as replacements for the 460cc flying pans that competitive players would be taking from their bags and putting in a cupboard.
Setting a small/short length for golf tees mightn’t be bad either.
Atb
-
A shorter golf tee increases maintenance costs as tee boxes will be as tight as greens. Almost all of these roll back methods end up costing the golfer more instead of less. You guys are like a government program.
-
Kalen -
I'm suggesting that bifurcation should NOT be undertaken because it will not work and doesn't really benefit anyone.
Golfers do not want to play "illegal" clubs as proven in NGF surveys. If certain balls and clubs are not legal for professional and amateur competition then they are essentially "illegal" for everyone and the notion of bifurcating doesn't make sense.
Golfers will want to play what the pros play which means the USGA and R&A should change the rules - like they did for long putters, box groove wedges, etc. - and provide a multi-year window for implementation.
Also, bifurcation would be a massive pain in the butt for manufacturers because on one hand they have to develop this new line of clubs and balls for pros and amateur competitions, and on the other they have to keep playing within the current rules (I guess?) to advance 2019 clubs and balls for amateurs.
It's a total mess for everyone involved, not economical, nor cost effective, nor in the spirit of the game.
-
I think this is actually an opportunity for manufacturers to benefit through increased sales while significantly improving all aspects of the game for pros and ams alike.
+1. There's an opportunity here (clouds can have silver linings).
atb
-
A shorter golf tee increases maintenance costs as tee boxes will be as tight as greens. Almost all of these roll back methods end up costing the golfer more instead of less. You guys are like a government program.
John - Chasing performance gains with titanium drivers, carbon titanium drivers, white headed drivers, RocketBallzier Drivers, movable weight drivers, after market shafts, launch monitors, increased green fees to pay for increased maintenance due to too many tee boxes or irrigated land required because courses are 500 yards longer than they need to be all costs the golfer more money.
If the USGA and R&A had managed technology appropriately then we wouldn't be in this position where the pro game and amateur game are 50 to 100 yards different off the tee.
Equipment purchase cycles would likely decrease after the initial roll back, although they are stabilizing now and we are at the point where if you are buying a new driver every year to get additional distance then you've never been fit properly or you just like shiny new things (which golfers have always enjoyed and that will probably never change).
-
No ones dues are going to go down because of a roll back. No fewer renovations will occur. If anything a roll back would be the next best new excuse to spend money chasing new members.
-
Robb,
I'm confused, you claim to be against bifurcation but then talk about the merits of the box groove wedges rule, which is a classic example of just that, (even if they will eventually be phased out for everyone). It'll be 14 years of weekend warriors being able to use something the pros and top ams currently are unable to. If this is how the ruling bodies decide to do this, I'd be fine with that too...but don't pretend its not currently bifurcation and couldn't be done with balls or drivers....
As for manufacturers having to adapt, I have no sympathy there...every business on the planet must constantly adapt to changing conditions, external or internal. But golfers who aspire to be better golfers will still want the next greatest thing, and will keep forking over in that pursuit, so I don't see how the economic incentives would somehow dry up even with new rules.
-
I like using the Bandon test when evaluating anything golf. Let's put a roll back to the Bandon test.
How much money would Bandon save with a 20% roll back?
How much quicker would rounds be?
How much more would you enjoy the architecture?
How much of these savings in time and money would be beneficial for the future of the resort?
-
Roll back for all? No way. Not everyone plays the back tees. What about senior golfers who currently play from forward tees ( 6000y or less ) and struggle to hit driver 200y?
Roll back for 1% ? Perhaps.
-
Roll back for all? No way. Not everyone plays the back tees. What about senior golfers who currently play from forward tees ( 6000y or less ) and struggle to hit driver 200y?
Roll back for 1% ? Perhaps.
They'll struggle to hit driver 190y.
-
... Better equipment adds to enjoyment for 99% of golfers. ...
What a crock! 99% of golfers spend $400 on the next great driver and cannot discern any difference in performance compared to the previous great driver.
My understanding is that scientific study has shown that when a golfer buys new equipment his belief that the equipment is better leads to better scores for a short period until the bad results that he was accustomed to with his old equipment accumulate to the point that his belief is gone and his performance has returned to what it was before he bought the new equipment. A very small percentage of these golfers end up actually continuing to play better. IMO they probably benefited more from some aspect of the clubs that was a better fit to their game than to any technological advance in the club.
The most enjoyment that players have derived from new equipment is the enjoyment that they no long regularly slice open their balata balls, and have to discard them.
-
Jesus, this is exactly like listening to Hillary Clinton run for President. We can't agree on anything, and any action might be cast by the other side as "too expensive" or "too radical". So the only solution is to give up trying, or cynically promise to "fight for" something you have no desire to actually see happen.
It's why I am willing to help make the argument, but I don't honestly believe anything will change. I've just listened to people lie about trying to change it for the entire 38 years I've been in the golf business.
-
Tom,
I once asked a Priest if I should sell all my worldly possessions and dedicate my life to helping the poor. He told me God puts some people on Earth to build roads and to just keep on doing exactly what God intended me to do.
You've earned fame and fortune over these last 38 years designing courses that satisfy the status quo. Have you ever considered building what you think we need instead of what golf demands? Do you need the number of that priest?
-
I have a more positive take on what a roll back would represent for manufacturers and the TOUR.
Having worked for a large equipment manufacturer it's no surprise that any type of roll back or bifurcation on equipment - drivers, metalwoods, ball, etc. - is feared due to revenue risk. The number of golfers is flat to down every year, technology is at the point of marginal gains and the marketing stories get more and more ludicrous. Having PGA TOUR pros play a different
"short flight" ball would crush the OEMs so they're lobbying like energy companies facing undeniable climate change science.
Even if technology doesn't improve anymore, younger generations will continue to shorten the length of courses due to the understanding and measurement of biomechanics (through video, launch monitors, etc.) along with the ability to specifically personalize clubs, especially metalwoods, through TrackMan and head/shaft combinations to optimize launch conditions and spin. That is where the BIG gain has occurred in the last decade.
A large number of "millennial" golfers whom I worked with in the industry were taught to swing out of their shoes at a young age because of the larger faced drivers and lower spinning balls. None of them were even close to making it on TOUR, but many of them could hit the ball as long or longer than TOUR Pros because it's really all about swing speed with the driver and these guys could go really low on a good day playing "bomb and gauge."
100 vs 110 vs 120 mph driver SS provides a DRASTIC difference in distance with a properly fit club and ball. If you are swinging around 100 then you're probably driving it around 250 to 260 IF OPTIMIZED but if you are swinging around 115 to 120 (which is a normal "athletic" swing for college kids and younger pros) you can be CARRYING the ball 300+ and keeping it in play which is obviously a massive advantage.
With the ability to manipulate CT across the face with metalwoods and irons, manufacturers have created 3 woods that high swing speed golfers can now hit over 300 yards as well. Henrik Stenson's magical Diablo and Rory's M 3 wood are just two examples, and this all started with RBZ 6 years ago and most people weren't optimizing their head/shaft combination then. Jason Day was also shown in ads hitting the M2 4 iron 250+ yards.
Swing Speed + Technology + Club Fitting = Obsolete Courses for a growing number of golfers.
The ball is obviously the most obvious issue, but just having a shorter flight or higher spinning ball probably won't solve the problem.
The high handicap golfer has received the least amount of benefit from modern technology which is why I wonder if bifurcation is the optimal solution. If the USGA and R&A rolled back the rules on balls and clubs, then the equipment companies would be in the same place they are now - competing for marginal gains, and golfers would be in the same place they are now - purchasing what the pros are playing in the hopes of finding free strokes (unsuccessfully).
Manufacturer revenue would go up initially as golfers transition away from their illegal clubs and golf balls (lottery time) and then it would be back to normal business trying to eek out gains playing within the new rules.
If you go back and watch some of the old Shell Wonderful World of Golf episodes it's pretty compelling to witness some of the best pros in the world hitting absolute garbage tee shots after missing the sweet spot on their persimmon drivers and having to skillfully recover from the boondocks. Then in contrast, watching Hogan put on a total ball striking clinic hitting every fairway and green. Golf was a game of skill and all about ball control, in every facet of the game.
Tiger Woods didn't happen because of technology and he would have been even more dominant if technology hadn't evolved rapidly during the early 2000's allowing other less skilled Pros to pick up distance. Golf didn't grow in the early 2000's because of technology, it grew because of Tiger.
The increases in technology prevent golf from having more stand out stars which significantly benefits the game. Nobody cares if a no name automaton pro wins a tournament and that is happening more and more often because of how technology levels the playing field with high swing speed golfers.
The entertainment value on the PGA Tour would absolutely increase if technology was rolled back. 5 irons into greens versus Wedges - Yes please! Never mind the fact that more interesting courses could host tournaments, fewer resources would be required for course maintenance across the spectrum, etc.
I can still remember caddying at a Pro-Am where Christy O'Connor and Liam Higgins were hitting from the Medal Tees which were about 10 to 20 yards behind the Member Tees on average. The group wandered the course together having a great chat all round. Today "the tips" are in a different zip code from the members tees and for what? Nothing about golf is more interesting now than it was 20+ years ago. In fact, it's much less interesting because pros and ams are playing a different game entirely.
mic drop
outstanding post on many levels
the last paragragh says it all
Funny how golf as exploding in the 1960's and now 2/3 of PGA speak is about "growing the game" often at the expense of the game.
The problem with the "99% loving the new tech"(which I strongly dispute) is that the 99% is constantly shrinking
-
Robb,
I'm confused, you claim to be against bifurcation but then talk about the merits of the box groove wedges rule, which is a classic example of just that, (even if they will eventually be phased out for everyone). It'll be 14 years of weekend warriors being able to use something the pros and top ams currently are unable to. If this is how the ruling bodies decide to do this, I'd be fine with that too...but don't pretend its not currently bifurcation and couldn't be done with balls or drivers....
Thanks Jeff!
Kalen - I'm not following what you are talking about with box groove wedges? They are illegal for tournaments (right?) and they aren't made anymore. I don't know anyone who is playing them. They may be technically legal if purchased X number of years ago but golfers like new equipment and wedges wear out. They are dead.
My point, which Garland just illustrated as well, is that there is no need for bifurcation. Slow swing speed golfers - i.e. the majority of Ams - are not benefiting from modern technology in a remotely similar manner as high swing speed golfers - i.e. Tour Pros and top Ams.
If 20 years of modern technology has gifted you an additional 70 yards on your drive because you swing at 120 mph, and it has gifted you 10 yards because you swing at 100 mph and 2 yards because you swing at 90 mph, then the impact of a roll back on the average golfer (the majority of the golfing population) will be inconsequential.
Hence, there is no reason to bifurcate the game. It would be wasteful and isn't in any parties best interest in the long run.
I played with two older gentlemen this weekend who had full bags of modern technology. They should have been playing 2 sets of tees forward because they couldn't hit it 150 and I could discern zero noticeable benefit that a modern club and ball was providing, especially as one gentleman switched to his 3 wood half way through the round and hit it straighter than his driver.
Modern technology hasn't made the game more fun, it's made equipment more expensive and product life cycles increase because when things look different it's easier to market progress.
It's also made courses longer and dues at clubs chasing relevance go through the roof. No wonder fewer people are playing every year and the "experiential" based Millennials are passing on golf in a greater number than any generation before them. They'd rather go to Top Golf and hit wedges at targets while hanging out and enjoying a drink. Golf is too expensive, takes too long to play, takes a bunch of practice (with or without modern technology), is less social now than ever before, etc.
It's time to save the courses, speed up the game, and reduce costs for the declining golf population. We can also make pro golf more interesting for those who enjoy watching it because shotmaking and ball striking technique will become more important. Who knows, maybe that will spark some interest like Tiger did (who won on technique vs technology).
-
Rob
+1
What the administration need to do is run a test with the current ball and a rolled back ball with a club swung at 70mph and every 1 mph all the way through to 130 to show how much everyone is going to lose.
Under 100 my guess is hardly anything at all - certainly nothing noticeable and nothing that would affect a score. Or as Phil Blackmar once said 'does it really make any difference if you shoot 86 or 88?'
If that determines your enjoyment - or not - of the game you're playing it for the wrong reasons.
-
I wonder what the ultimate outcome was from this incident? Lots of media etc at the time but it things then seemed to go quiet - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,66421.25.html (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,66421.25.html)
A golf ball can be an incoming missile and these days they travel a long, long way and when you can't see them coming or going or land ......
atb
-
Rob
+1
What the administration need to do is run a test with the current ball and a rolled back ball with a club swung at 70mph and every 1 mph all the way through to 130 to show how much everyone is going to lose.
Under 100 my guess is hardly anything at all - certainly nothing noticeable and nothing that would affect a score. Or as Phil Blackmar once said 'does it really make any difference if you shoot 86 or 88?'
If that determines your enjoyment - or not - of the game you're playing it for the wrong reasons.
Mike
Not to single you out, but your last line is part of the problem with some rollbackers. The language can come across as smug and superior. Telling a guy he plays golf for the wrong reasons is a sure way to switch him off to your argument.
In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists? Or am I misreading?
Ciao
-
Instead of waiting for someone to implement a rollback, what’s preventing these guys from playing balls and equipment that aren’t tricked out/juiced?
Nothing really makes a statement than leading by example.
Demand.
Which they are trying to create.
Perhaps out of my non-existant Florida basement I'll start a "Let Me Walk" Coalition to create the same.
-
… part of the problem with some rollbackers. The language can come across as smug and superior. Telling a guy he plays golf for the wrong reasons is a sure way to switch him off to your argument.
In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists? Or am I misreading?
Ciao
Sean - I agree that those of us in favor of a rollback can have the tendency to sound holier than thou. I know I fight that tendency. I hope I am winning the fight. The game is a broad church and the Rollback Alliance effort needs to be inclusive and positive - you're not the only one to tell me that this week. A very important point.
And yes - some after a rollback are in favor of bifurcation, while others prefer a universal rollback.
John K - The Bandon Test is a good yardstick. That comment has made me think - I am of the opinion that poorly designed courses quite likely magnify the ills of technological advancements in golf in many instances. Some good courses invariably neuter, to some extent, the harmful effects of burgeoning ball distance on the game. Those that demand great thought, are firm, and demand accuracy, and especially so in the case of Bandon, are also built a long way from suburban sprawl and roads, aren't at the forefront of my mind when I ponder this issue of distance.
And Jim Sullivan - to your question of me as to what I'd say to Jay Monaghan and Keith Pelley if I were to speak with them on this topic? Well, they're employees of the respective Tours. High profile, high ranking, and intelligent employees, but employees nonetheless. And both Tours are member run organisations. They essentially do what the pro players want them to do. I suspect the Tours would not fight a rollback if they thought the ball and equipment companies were happy with it, seeing they are the largest single paymaster of the players. And the Tours would presumably also be OK proceeding down this path if they thought they could make money off it, and not lose key sponsors.
Matthew
-
In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists? Or am I misreading?
Ciao
Sean,
I signed on as a Rollback pilot, but I am actually for bifurcation out of all the options.
As has been brought up, I generally don't care what professionals shoot in their tournaments -- the low scoring has to do with other things than equipment. But I am concerned the length professionals drive the ball is going to increase and at some future point, with average 350- to 400-yard drives, golf ceases to become golf as we know it.
What do you do with courses at that point? Doesn't it continue to shrink the venues that can host tournaments? And when you get this far down the line, how is the entertainment value of the product not threatened?
Not to sound dramatic but this might be the last chance to install a set of rules or regulations for professional golf that will help maintain the integrity of the equipment, the courses they play and the professional product overall.
For everyone else, play whatever you like.
-
Rob
+1
What the administration need to do is run a test with the current ball and a rolled back ball with a club swung at 70mph and every 1 mph all the way through to 130 to show how much everyone is going to lose.
Under 100 my guess is hardly anything at all - certainly nothing noticeable and nothing that would affect a score. Or as Phil Blackmar once said 'does it really make any difference if you shoot 86 or 88?'
If that determines your enjoyment - or not - of the game you're playing it for the wrong reasons.
Mike
Not to single you out, but your last line is part of the problem with some rollbackers. The language can come across as smug and superior. Telling a guy he plays golf for the wrong reasons is a sure way to switch him off to your argument.
In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists? Or am I misreading?
Ciao
Sean,
Apologies if it came across that way. My only point was there is very little difference between shooting 88 and 86 - or at least that was Phil's point - and the way the anti- rollbackers come across it seems that is the some of them frame the debate. Are those few extra yards really going to make that much difference to their enjoyment?
For most surely the enjoyment of the game comes from the company, the golf course and the shots you hit. The ball going a little less far shouldn't diminish any of those factors and it it does then I think it's missing the point of the game.
-
Mike,
To be fair - to the golfer shooting 86 or 88 there is exactly the same difference between the golfer shooting 62 or 64.
Two shots.
The issues seems to be whether or not those two shots are worth $5 in a match or $500,000 in a tournament. To both groups, that is important.
-
I don't know Kyle, I think the equipment enables the Tour level player to do a lot more that makes the 62 possible whereas the 12 handicapper has so many other variables in their round that picking up (or losing) 10 or 20 yards off the tee would be a very small factor in that result...especially when a different set of tees is a very easy solution.
-
I don't know Kyle, I think the equipment enables the Tour level player to do a lot more that makes the 62 possible whereas the 12 handicapper has so many other variables in their round that picking up (or losing) 10 or 20 yards off the tee would be a very small factor in that result...especially when a different set of tees is a very easy solution.
But this, too, works both ways. I agree with the idea but the rhetoric still loses steam because it applies equally for everybody. Shorter tees on the one extreme vs. longer tees on the other.
The question to me is whether or not a rollback becomes the "Nixon Shock" for the currency of the game: the stroke.
-
The USGA rolled back grooves a few years ago, how did that workout?
-
Rollback isn’t just about scoring and other aspects within the game. There’s a lot more at stake for the game than just that. Consider land use, water usage and the like in the future.
Mike Cirba in his interview with Ran in April perceptively said this -
“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, much as that may seem counter-intuitive.”
When golf started to become popular, for ease of discussion let’s say circa 1900, the population of the world was about 1.7 billion. It’s now about 7.7 billion.
Atb
-
With wind speeds increasing due to climate change this is hardly the time to ask golfers to play with a weaker ball.
Any of us who have played at all know that the key to hitting a shot during windy conditions is solid contact. A 20% roll back in laboratory conditions will be far worse in the field.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/amp/climate-change-could-bring-stronger-winds-more-wind-power.html
-
In any case, it sounds like some rollbackers are really bifurcationists? Or am I misreading?
Ciao
Sean,
I signed on as a Rollback pilot, but I am actually for bifurcation out of all the options.
As has been brought up, I generally don't care what professionals shoot in their tournaments -- the low scoring has to do with other things than equipment. But I am concerned the length professionals drive the ball is going to increase and at some future point, with average 350- to 400-yard drives, golf ceases to become golf as we know it.
What do you do with courses at that point? Doesn't it continue to shrink the venues that can host tournaments? And when you get this far down the line, how is the entertainment value of the product not threatened?
Not to sound dramatic but this might be the last chance to install a set of rules or regulations for professional golf that will help maintain the integrity of the equipment, the courses they play and the professional product overall.
For everyone else, play whatever you like.
Derek
I understand and share the concerns of roll backers, but perhaps not to the same degree.
Like you, I am not overly concerned about professionals. It is entirely up to them to figure out how to make their product entertaining and a viable product. That said, I think, it would be best for "golf" if pros and elite level amateurs played rolled back equipment...more than just the ball. If only because it would seem clubs, owners and developers seem incapable of ignoring elite players when it comes to the custodianship of courses. I would also like to see a club loft limit of something like between 17 to 50 degrees (putter excepted) as well....and 8 clubs max. Therefore, I do believe the USGA and R&A should act, hopefully in concert with professional tours etc.
I am very much against a total roll back because I am not convinced the effects will be next to nothing for non-elite amateurs, plus I am not convinced it is necessary.
Mike
No worries on my part, but I know there is certainly a backlash against talking heads acting as if they know what is best for all.
Ciao
-
The USGA rolled back grooves a few years ago, how did that workout?
Actually that was bifurcation as pre 2010 grooves are legal until 2024, unless specifically banned as a condition of competition.
Their (misplaced) intent was that players would fear the rough and fliers and make more conservative choices off the tee,
thereby their (yet again) misguided attempts to duck the real problem of club and ball tech outpacing reality and judgement at the USGA.
and hence, bomb and gouge was born when players realized a wedge flier from the rough was easier than a 7 iron from the fairway.
But hey., we got no anchoring (if you X-ray Bernhard and McCarron I'm sure you'll see their "intent" is not to anchor-better yet just ask 'em) knee high drops and pins going in and out so why not fiddle more why Rome is burning and evidently Pickleball (rolled back tennis) is flourishing.
Besides, irons only ranges are really cool (auto rollback)unless of course you'd like to hit driver on a "driving" range.
I'd say 3/4 of the driving ranges in the northeast are that now-wasn't the case 20 years ago, but all it takes is an 18 year old with a Twistface and a Pinnacle and look out.
Then there are the simplified rules...
Name one person who knows the rules better now than they did a year ago.
I'd bet not one person who didn't bother to learn the rules pre revision that would suddenly bother to learn them now that they're "simplfied", while the thousands who did know them are simply confused and bemused.
-
If you really want to change the game for the long hitters simply institute an off sides rule like soccer. Hit the ball past a certain spot, say 330 yds out and you are off sides, 1 stroke penalty. It will only harm those who hit the ball like you no longer can.
Cost: A can a spray paint.
-
The groove rule is instructive to me in that it demonstrates that the manufacturer's can be quite smart at delivering conforming equipment to their players that meets a "new" standard.
I suspect that within a couple years of an across the board rollback of some sort, the top players on Tour will hit the ball just as far as they do today. If the reward is there, they will find a way.
If I am correct, what would have been gained?
-
Once the off sides rule is instituted elite golfers will look for club configurations focused on accuracy over distance. Golfers like Rory may carry one less wood and one more wedge. Ball manufacturers will introduce scoring balls over distance balls. It's everything the rollbackers want without hurting anyone.
For the pure strategist and using another soccer reference the first off sides in a round would be a yellow card warning with a one stroke red card penalty for the rest. Sometimes we want the long baller to give it a rip. Now it will be limited to once a round.
-
Forget your goofy offsides rule...just play courses at 6500 yards with rock hard funky little greens...DJ will beg for an old balata and the rest will take care of itself.
-
Derek
I understand and share the concerns of roll backers, but perhaps not to the same degree.
Like you, I am not overly concerned about professionals. It is entirely up to them to figure out how to make their product entertaining and a viable product. That said, I think, it would be best for "golf" if pros and elite level amateurs played rolled back equipment...more than just the ball. If only because it would seem clubs, owners and developers seem incapable of ignoring elite players when it comes to the custodianship of courses. I would also like to see a club loft limit of something like between 17 to 50 degrees (putter excepted) as well....and 8 clubs max. Therefore, I do believe the USGA and R&A should act, hopefully in concert with professional tours etc.
I am very much against a total roll back because I am not convinced the effects will be next to nothing for non-elite amateurs, plus I am not convinced it is necessary.
Mike
No worries on my part, but I know there is certainly a backlash against talking heads acting as if they know what is best for all.
Ciao
Sean, I'd be on board with everything you said. And my definition of bifurcation or whatever it's to be called would certainly address things beside the ball, specifically the driver.
-
Forget your goofy offsides rule...just play courses at 6500 yards with rock hard funky little greens...DJ will beg for an old balata and the rest will take care of itself.
That isn't possible without making drastic changes to existing courses with tournament infrastructure.
-
Barney,
I like where you're going with this one. But perhaps just grow swaths of US Open-like rough to limit how far they can hit it...a bit like 15 at Muirfield Village. Then just mow it back down after the tourney.
-
Plenty of goofy ways to thwart long hitters, but that's not the objective.
Long driving and even better, long accurate driving, is a skill that historically has and should be rewarded.
The best players always had power, at least in reserve.
Like other sports, I'm just asking the governing bodies (who never cease to regulate in other ridiculous ways)to properly regulate the technology advancements of the equipment, like other sports do.
Should every fly ball be a home run in baseball?
Jim does bring up an interesting point about the groove change tech change being regained within a year or two.
I mean how smart exactly do manufacturers have to be to thwart an organization who butchered the same course twice after vowing it wouldn't happen again(again), etc.....
What many forget is that it's not just the elite hitting it miles, but the athletic that aren't so elite yet hit it 330 quite long and wrong.
Let the longest be the longest-the longest and most skilled will BENEFIT as they will still be bombing it in relation to others, without being reigned in by goofy setups and/or tees miles away from the last green.
-
Isn't offsides in soccer designed to prevent the best athletes from running past everyone and scoring. OfTsides in golf is the exact same principle in that it reigns in athleticism. I have coined the term ofTsides with a capital T to bring attention to the problems also created through technology.
-
Mike,
To be fair - to the golfer shooting 86 or 88 there is exactly the same difference between the golfer shooting 62 or 64.
Two shots.
The issues seems to be whether or not those two shots are worth $5 in a match or $500,000 in a tournament. To both groups, that is important.
If the competitors are playing by the same rules (I&B), the money is not important, because their competitors also shoot higher scores.
-
I fail to understand the rollback arguments.
Any course that adds length does so per it’s own decision. Vanity, I assume. “Protecting par”. There is no need to build longer courses. The back tees at most courses get limited use today. If members want longer courses and faster greens that allow them to brag about difficulty, let them pay for that. Courses that manage to their budget will survive. Those that overextend or fail to manage budget will not.
Let the pros score whatever they score. They only play a small number of courses anyway. Not the ones that most golfers play. A pro will beat the average player, regardless of equipment. Hitting a tennis ball with a bunker rake. Let them score 50 under in tournaments. What does that matter?
I play with seniors who carry 18 clubs and two rangefinders. They have $400 drivers, which they adjust multiple times during a round. They buy new irons every year or two. Most never hit it more than 180 yards. They play a 5000 yard course. Without today’s giant drivers and hot golf balls, they’d not play at all. If they see a pro win with a new putter, it’s in their bag the next week. If an endorsement promises them 10 yards longer drives, they take out the credit card. Do you think they care about a rollback?
On the other extreme, there are players who carry bags with assorted clubs, including 3 rusty 5-irons and a beer cooler. A 15 pack of top-flights usually gets them through a round. Do they care about rollbacks?
These groups make up a large percentage of the golfing public, that pays the bills. Despite what the NGA or USGA wants to believe, neither of the above groups follows the rules very closely. They do, however, watch the pros and buy the equipment that the pros endorse.
Let the kids bomb it and enjoy that. Make the game more difficult and the younger generations will play on their iPhone, not on your golf course.
Finally, what is the agreed upon proposed rollback? Hickory and featheries would certainly allow for shorter pro courses. How are equipment limits measured and enforced? Manufacturers demonstrate the ability to work around legislated limits. Recent club tests by the Tour have shown that.
I guess the equipment rules could mandate a rollback, but why? Instead, make courses beautiful, sustainable, interesting, and with multiple shot options. (This IS a forum on course architecture, right?)
-
My take on ball rollback after debating this issue over my last 15 years on GCA:
1. Absent equipment innovations, PGA tour average driving distance pretty consistently increases around a yard per year. Jumps have occurred during years of big technical innovations but overall expect average driving distance to increase 15-20 yards over the next 20 years.
https://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour (https://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour)
2. The cause of distance increases is irrelevant in my view. The question is whether something should be done to dial distance back, regardless of cause.
3. The positive of increased distance is the fun of crushing a golf ball for the player and the premium prices club and ball manufacturers can charge for equipment. It will be tough to sell the newest driver or ball at a premium price if it they are shorter than prior versions.
4. The negatives of increased driving distance include a fundamental change in the challenge presented by classic golf courses, a growing disparity in the distance different levels of player hit the ball, increased acreage necessary for a golf course, increased time necessary to walk a course and increased safety issues caused by shots going further offline.
5. I believe distance is a bigger issue for everyday play than it is at the professional level. I recently waited for the green to clear on a 350-yard hole so a 10-handicap kid could wait to hit driver. He hit it to the back fringe on his way to shooting 42 for nine holes. I have seen a lot of athletic, mediocre golfers launch the ball a long ways in a wide variety of directions.
6. People have been howling about the distance the ball goes for at least 100 years. Rollback proponents need to be able to argue why there is a crisis now.
7. I believe a rollback would improve the game because it could lower cost, shorten the walk and reduce the time needed to play the game. I do not think it will happen because the manufacturers who invest in the game see business risk.
-
...
I play with seniors who carry 18 clubs and two rangefinders. They have $400 drivers, which they adjust multiple times during a round. They buy new irons every year or two. Most never hit it more than 180 yards. They play a 5000 yard course. Without today’s giant drivers and hot golf balls, they’d not play at all.
That's total BS!
If they see a pro win with a new putter, it’s in their bag the next week. If an endorsement promises them 10 yards longer drives, they take out the credit card.
You expect us to believe that they will spend lots of money on equipment, and they will quit if they can't? So these are shoppers, not golfers?
Do you think they care about a rollback?
If they don't care, then there is no reason to discuss them. Why did you bring them up?
On the other extreme, there are players who carry bags with assorted clubs, including 3 rusty 5-irons and a beer cooler. A 15 pack of top-flights usually gets them through a round. Do they care about rollbacks?
If they don't care, then there is no reason to discuss them. Why did you bring them up?
These groups make up a large percentage of the golfing public, that pays the bills. Despite what the NGA or USGA wants to believe, neither of the above groups follows the rules very closely. They do, however, watch the pros and buy the equipment that the pros endorse.
Let the kids bomb it and enjoy that. Make the game more difficult and the younger generations will play on their iPhone, not on your golf course.
Rolling back equipment will not make the game more difficult for these people. The game already is difficult.
Finally, what is the agreed upon proposed rollback? Hickory and featheries would certainly allow for shorter pro courses. How are equipment limits measured and enforced? Manufacturers demonstrate the ability to work around legislated limits. Recent club tests by the Tour have shown that.
What is useful is dependable equipment. Hickories are not dependable, they break. Balata balls are not dependable, they cut. Graphite shafts are dependable, but for the most part unnecessary. I find them useful in the winter when steel shafts have activated arthritis in my hands. Some people find hybrids helpful. Emphasis should be reliable equipment on useful improvements. If the manufacturers find a way to beat limits, adopt new limits. The reason stated for not reining in the ball when it advanced was that the USGA believed it would bankrupt one significant company. They didn't state which company, but I have always assumed that it was TopFlite since they were totally dependent on low spin balls, and reining in the distance traveled by low spin balls would affect their entire product line.
I guess the equipment rules could mandate a rollback, but why? Instead, make courses beautiful, sustainable, interesting, and with multiple shot options. (This IS a forum on course architecture, right?)
The more the divergence in distance from long hitters to average hitters, the harder it is to make interesting courses for the golfing public.
-
Garland, you missed my point. The majority of golfers, who buy the equipment and spend the money to keep the golf business going, do not care about equipment rollback. They want help in playing and enjoying the game. They are influenced by pro players who endorse equipment. Why do you think they spend the money? Chasing dreams.
No need to change courses, leave them as they are. The fact that a small number of private courses are adding length to protect par and retain their bragging rights is not sufficient to justify more difficult equipment. Let those members pay the cost of course changes, if they want. Most courses will stay unchanged. I can not name a course near me that has added length, other than one or two that host Tour events, which I assume more than pays for the changes.
Kids who bomb the ball enjoy that and are attracted to the game. Why limit that? Why drive players away with more difficult equipment? How will rolled back equipment attract more players to the game or keep existing players? Equipment should change to make the game easier.
Top players scoring lower matters not to me. It’s just a number and a minuscule percentage of golfers. Build courses for the average golfer, not the 1%.
Reasoning for rollback continues to escape me. Apologies for adding fuel to the debate. I’ve said all I intend to on the subject.
-
Dave
What were my childhood friends and I and all those old men in front of us thinking taking up and ,playing golf in in an era when it was no fun evidently.
You really think old men will quit and kids won't play if they cant use waffle sized clubs on hot golf balls.
Distance is relative and skill that encourages long term participation and enduring passion is earned-not bought.
A wooden driver still propels a balatalike golf ball significantly farther than any other ball travels in sport.
What if the limited financial resources available were spent on green fees, memberships, lessons and golf events,rather than lining the pockets of CEOS, investment bankers,marketers and investors of manufacturers with no interest whatsoever in the local culture or economy?
Maybe the above explains why golf was growing when equipment gains were stable and now its shrinking while equipment gains have exploded.
As you say, if you nobody but 1% is worried about a rollback, why should we worry about losing players who already ignore the rules or would ignore a rollback?
Maybe some players would actually go exercise and practice after being outdriven rather than constantly and semiannually seeking out snd purchasing the latest and greatest equipment whose cost is highly inflated by a highly paid touring pro schill?
Years ago we used to laugh at claims about equipment-now many claims are actually true.
And I sell golf clubs and bave a club endorsement deal!
To think that golf courses won't grow in size as equipment grows- ignores the fact that nearly every course I've competed in the last 40 years is now longer and many more sets of tees and distance gaps exist than in the balata/wooden era.
Why?because the elite got much longer,the long and wrong athlete got much longer and the old men who are about to supposedly "quit" didnt and got left behind.
They wont lose something they never gained from equipment that optimizrs distance for higher speed and spin players..
But Im totally cool with bufurcation as its more practical and as you illustrate the game is already bifurcated in many ways and with separate tees thats the ultimate bifurcation
-
1. I've been at this for 30 years. The width required for safety is 50% more than it was 30 years ago. This is killing inner city courses with lawsuits.
2. It needs to be a complete rollback. There are 10 people at every club who can hit as far as the professionals can. 9 of them hit only a fairway or two a round. My biggest issue is not with professionals, it is someone who can match their swing speed without any control. We are required to design to address the worst case scenario. The problem with the ball for me is how far it will fly off line
I can give you other related issues like water consumption, land requirements, the challenge of finding labor, etc, etc. Whether you like to admit it or not, the game is not economically sustainable in the long run around cities. But if you reduce the footprint, the economics work much better.
-
1. I've been at this for 30 years. The width required for safety is 50% more than it was 30 years ago. This is killing inner city courses with lawsuits.
2. It needs to be a complete rollback. There are 10 people at every club who can hit as far as the professionals can. 9 of them hit only a fairway or two a round. My biggest issue is not with professionals, it is someone who can match their swing speed without any control. We are required to design to address the worst case scenario. The problem with the ball for me is how far it will fly off line
I can give you other related issues like water consumption, land requirements, the challenge of finding labor, etc, etc. Whether you like to admit it or not, the game is not economically sustainable in the long run around cities. But if you reduce the footprint, the economics work much better.
Amen.
Scale scale scale.
And virtually no course modifications or setups address the scale issue...
Which is so simply solved
-
Thanks Ian and Jeff.
I find it surprising someone could hold a contrary view to you Ian, given what you see, how long you’ve been in the field, and how succinctly you express your observations. Particularly given that you stand to profit from consulting in the problems caused by escalating distance, yet speak about curtailing it.
Again, this issue is way beyond how far the top few PGA Tour professionals drive or what they score. Anyone who bases their discussion of distance on those points is not seeing the big picture.
Matt
-
Hello,
I get a minimum of 50 balls a year in my pool and last year one club. It is destroying the value of my property. Yet I am against a roll back because I both play and love the game. I am the voice of reason.
-
Garland, you missed my point. The majority of golfers, who buy the equipment and spend the money to keep the golf business going, do not care about equipment rollback. They want help in playing and enjoying the game. They are influenced by pro players who endorse equipment. Why do you think they spend the money? Chasing dreams.
No need to change courses, leave them as they are. The fact that a small number of private courses are adding length to protect par and retain their bragging rights is not sufficient to justify more difficult equipment. Let those members pay the cost of course changes, if they want. Most courses will stay unchanged. I can not name a course near me that has added length, other than one or two that host Tour events, which I assume more than pays for the changes.
Kids who bomb the ball enjoy that and are attracted to the game. Why limit that? Why drive players away with more difficult equipment? How will rolled back equipment attract more players to the game or keep existing players? Equipment should change to make the game easier.
Top players scoring lower matters not to me. It’s just a number and a minuscule percentage of golfers. Build courses for the average golfer, not the 1%.
Reasoning for rollback continues to escape me. Apologies for adding fuel to the debate. I’ve said all I intend to on the subject.
Dave,
Would you argue that equipment regulations should be relaxed so that the ball goes farther and clubbers are bigger, as a way of increasing the popularity of the game?
-
Top players scoring lower matters not to me. It’s just a number and a minuscule percentage of golfers. Build courses for the average golfer, not the 1%.
This is one of the most popular straw men used by the corporate shills who oppose taking action.
-
... I am the voice of reason.
Barney,
That's your funniest line ever!
-
One of the problems with this whole debate is its dominated by Americans and American companies (bent only on profit,distance and in the business of selling hope) who don't care one dot about how this affects the rest of the world.
And we already know the game survived - thrived even -around the world when the ball was rolled back in the early 1980s.
And Ian Andrew is right - the ball has never been hit so far off line. Which is why amateurs spending all this money buying hope haven't lowered their scores.
-
... I am the voice of reason.
Barney,
That's your funniest line ever!
.... apart from the one above about the offside law in soccer!
:):):)
atb
-
1. I've been at this for 30 years. The width required for safety is 50% more than it was 30 years ago. This is killing inner city courses with lawsuits.
2. It needs to be a complete rollback. There are 10 people at every club who can hit as far as the professionals can. 9 of them hit only a fairway or two a round. My biggest issue is not with professionals, it is someone who can match their swing speed without any control. We are required to design to address the worst case scenario. The problem with the ball for me is how far it will fly off line
I can give you other related issues like water consumption, land requirements, the challenge of finding labor, etc, etc. Whether you like to admit it or not, the game is not economically sustainable in the long run around cities. But if you reduce the footprint, the economics work much better.
Excellent post Ian. +1.
It's not about scoring, there's a much bigger picture to consider.
atb
-
Seems like it all boils down to those who care about golf against those who care about money. How do the golf lovers win that battle?
-
By showing those with money how it’s better for them...
-
Was the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2010 good for mortgage lenders?
The build up to it was...but they’d likely have preferred a steadier path to today.
-
By showing those with money how it’s better for them...
I agree and I do not mean that in a disparaging way. Practically I do not think it happens otherwise.
-
People who don't play can not be allowed to impose their will on those who do. When do you think the people who got elephants banned last went to the circus? Sure banning elephants from the entertainment business was a noble cause but try telling that to an unemployed contortionist.
-
Titleist is South Korean, Bridgestone is Japanese, and Callaway is American. Each, I imagine, care about both golf and profit. In any event, not clear that rollback, with or without bifurcation, would be less profitable. The USA and market capitalism aren't to blame for all of the world's perceived ills. To paraphrase, it is not from the benevolence of the manufacturers that we expect our golf equipment, but from their regard to their own self-interest. As for the American consumer, I think proponents would do well to prove the promise that a rollback will pull back the 300+ belters without much effect on the vast majority of lesser hitters. This would hit the American sweet spot: Righteous, with all cost borne by others.
-
... I am the voice of reason.
Barney,
That's your funniest line ever!
.... apart from the one above about the offside law in soccer!
:) :) :)
atb
That was a good idea actually, very out of the box, even if the method of implementation isn't palatable.
Reminds me a bit of my tournament softball days. They had so many good players who could hit every other ball a country mile, so they had a rule of two home runs per team per game...every one after that was an out. Made for far more interesting games when players weren't swinging for the fences on every pitch.
-
A common sense solution compared to building a new fence or forcing everyone to play with dead bats.
-
A common sense solution compared to building a new fence or forcing everyone to play with dead bats.
You know how they fixed it since then? With a flight limited ball. When I was playing it was just being introduced and the complaints were off the charts, but rec softball is more popular than ever...
Everything else stays the same, just fix the ball....
-
And Pickleball is crazy popular with its slow ball and small courts.
-
As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;
1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?
2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?
Niall
-
As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;
1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?
2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?
Niall
As a practical matter, I'd say bifurcation works best but...
given the fantasy choice as golf czar?
1. wooden heads (or comparable Taylormadish metal heads from 1980's that mimicked wood performance)
2. balataish spinny balls-Spalding Tour edition or some other synthetic more practical
But a rollback to hickoryish gutta percha distance would make more sense to keep shorter courses viable and provide further safety corridors for the distance gained that HAVE been gained via more actual athleticism, and reduce the space and inputs required-but I accept that might be too big of a leap
I currently play a modern Callaway driver and ball(on Callaway Staff)
Callaway irons and a 20 year old 5 wood as I still attempt(operative word lately) to compete in both regular and Senior events
What I play should not be germaine to the conversation of whether bifurcation or a rollback is good for the game but happy to provide it.
-
How far back do you want to roll ?
10% for a drive that goes 250 yds.
Longer player will lose more than 10%
Shorter player will lose less.
The gain was not equal, the reduction will work out the same way.
I've hit the test ball they made in the mid 2000's at an event where they paid players to play it for a day
I was invited to observe and try them out. It feels the same in every respect, but doesn't go as far.
I don't have any equipment that is current ...
I play what I find.
-
As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;
1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?
2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?
Niall
Taylor made frying pan driver. Alternate between my 1958 MacGregor 3 and 4 woods and a Callaway 3 wood and Honma 5 wood
Honma irons. Titleist ball.
The equipment should go back to when the balance between course and player - at the top level - was a fair fight. It was that with persimmon and balata between the era of Hogan and Snead up until the crossover from Norman and Faldo to Tiger. Pre Jones - the first great modern player - the balance was clearly in favour of the course.
The ProV1 was the breakout ball and allied with the massive driver heads and quality graphite shafts the balance swung way in favour of the players.
As John Huggan said we should go back to the time just before they started moving tees back on The Old Course.
10% is about right - so back to when Andy Bean was the tour's longest driver at just under 280. And the real problem is still coming. Wait until you see how far the next generation is going to hit it.
-
As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;
1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?
My clubs are all built from components usually clearance items. I generally play balls I find. However, I will buy balls for a competition. Most recently I bought TopFlite Gamer for our club championship.
When we played our match at Carne during Buda, I was using my favorite driver. I bought the head for $9.95 (I have 3 of them), and the shaft for $20 to $25. it is 8.5 degrees so I added lead tape to the bottom of the back edge to get the swingweight up and to add loft during the swing. The brand? I don't remember, and no one would recognize it anyway.
2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?
Limit COR to the COR of persimmon. Allow metal "woods" as I used to shatter the hosels on persimmon woods when I was young. I doubt a metal wood with the COR of persimmon would cave in, but I may be wrong about that. I have broken a graphite shaft during play, but never a steel shaft so I have a slight preference for steel over graphite. Hickory would break too often for my tastes. I don't see the need for 460 cc drivers. Perhaps 230 cc would be a good limit. Tom Wishon once told me that oversized fairway woods never worked out very well, so I doubt there is a need to size limit clubs used to pick the ball off the ground.
I know Jack Nicklaus wants to further rein in initial velocity of the ball. But, I think they should deal with spin first. It seems to me that limiting the ball to two pieces might be the way to go. The break through in ball development was the creation of the 3 piece solid ball. If you want spin to control the ball around the green, you use a softer cover. E.g., Bridgestone produced the two piece e5 (if I remember correctly) with a urethane cover that spun off wedges nearly as well as the three piece balls. Of course it had higher spin rates off driver. Higher spin off driver lets slower swing speeds keep the ball in the air longer, but causes higher swing speeds to produce a ballooning ball flight that fell shorter.
Niall
-
I have several sets of clubs. I’m off 9.
I love hickories and play them over the warmer six months of the year when the ground is firm. The places I play are well suited to those old clubs and the challenge is enjoyable, and the satisfaction of good shots is really something. I also marvel are the skills clubmakers must have possessed decades ago.
I sometimes play a set of 80s equipment with steel shafts, forged blades, and persimmon. I’ve got a few balata balls remaining and it is fun to go back to the kind of equipment I started out with. I actually find the hickories easier to play than the stuff Arnie, Jack or Seve played with.
Club competitions, tournaments and medals as well as some social rounds I use reasonably contemporary clubs but not latest models. Titleist 690 irons. Driver is a Titleist 910 and the fairway wood and hybrid are also Titleist. Always use ProV1 balls.
As my friends have heard me say, picking up the modern clubs after a spell with the hickories feels like cheating.
As far as the degree of a rollback, Clayts makes a great point about the Old Course. I’d have it around there too if I was the Czar of golf.
Matt
-
I've gone to three sets, or rather half-sets, as I don't bother to carry 14.
I usually rotate which set I use on a game-by-game basis but this does depend on whether I'm playing social golf with others, some holes on my own or a formal competition.
Set 1 - modern frying pan driver, metal fairways, cavity backs.
Set 2 - 1980's-90's persimmons and forged blades
Set 3 - hickories circa 1910 (not replica's)
The most enjoyable to play? Hickories, but I won't use them in the winter nor in the wet.
Most difficult to play? 80's-90's persimmons and blades. More difficult than hickories.
Easiest to play? Modern era.
Most practical? Modern era. They don't bend or snap or go soft if left damp. They don't need much if any care and attention or periodical re-finishing/restoring.
The ball?
Usually the Callaway Chrome Soft. I have some balata Dunlop 65's too. It's not just the greater distance the modern ball achieves but the relative 'straightness' too, especially in the wind.
Conclusion.
Older clubs are great fun but less practical than modern era equipment.
Balata balls cut and go out of round so are less practical than modern balls.
Practicality is important. Playing numbers should not decline.
Rollback.
Ball - for practicality I'd go with modern ball construction but with something like a 20% rollback in distance. I'd go with 20% to allow a margin for future cleverness by ball manufacturers and bigger, stronger people/golfers.
Clubs - again for practicality, I'd reduce the Driver head size to circa 200cc.
As an addition, I'd be keen to see a reduction to say 8 or 9 on the max number of clubs that can be carried. I'd also like to see a limit on tee-peg height.
One other aspect about a rollback - putting and less than full shots constitute the majority of shots played in a round and a distance rollback oughtn't to effect these parts of the game. And if you top or fat a shot, well the club doesn't really matter that much!
Fingers crossed for a rollback but breath not being held.
atb
-
For all those who are dead against it. I think you'll be happy in the end.
Personally, I've lost hope.
Just understand that between access to water, rising labor costs, decreasing demand and lawsuits, the game has huge looming issues in and around cities. This will become a game for the wealthy. For many this outcome is fine.
I began in public golf ... that would be a depressing outcome.
-
As a matter of interest, for all of the rollerbackers on this thread ie. Matthew, Jeff, Ian, Chris Kane, Pete, Mike etc, can you tell me this;
1 - what clubs and balls do you currently use ?
2 - how far back do you want to roll ? eg. hickories and gutta percha or just back to the old balata days ?
Niall
1. I use the best stuff I can identify for my game that makes sense financially. I want every advantage I can identify. I would do that regardless of the equipment rules.
2. I would set a standard that results in something like 250 yards of ball flight for an optimized tour average swing speed and adjust those specs as necessary every 5 years to meet the same standard. My preference would be to do that through the ball rather than through club rules because of the cost of changing out clubs. A good 7,000 yard course would require the best players to hit a variety of clubs to reach par 4's in regulation after a good tee ball hit with a driver. This type of standard would preserve the advantage long hitters enjoy while making the dimension requirements for a course remain consistent.
-
As some others have said, I have begun playing with different equipment depending on what interests me.
For most of my rounds, I play with my modern equipment. My irons are several years old, but still recent enough to be considered modern. I do appreciate how easy it is to play and score.
But when I want an extra challenge or when playing alone, I pull out the vintage persimmon woods and blades (from the 50s-80s). The excitement comes from trying to hit different shots and appreciating the skill it takes to play well with equipment that is much more difficult to hit well. The really difficult thing has been figuring out which ball to use with vintage clubs. It also has been fun learning how to restore and tinker with these old clubs. They definitely have more character and soul than modern equipment.
-
Lots of interesting and informative posts here.
I guess what disappoints me is that "rollbackers or bifurcators" are seen as the crazy ones wanting to "change" the game, as opposed to the massive changes we've incurred in the last 25 years, where course alterations, maintenance, setup, safety and simple sustainability are continually compromised.(while participation drops)
Even current PGA Tour players laugh at the recent jumps, and club pros with vested equipment interests continuously speak to me agree things are way out of whack.
Many opponents think it's all good if things just remain where they are, and that most of the increases are behind us-I've been reading and hearing that for 25 + years-especially from the USGA, who would study an exit stairwell while people jumped from upstairs windows....
but damn, first we gotta stop Bernhard Langer and Web Simpson from putting so well, because everybody was altering greens due to their putting dominance. ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Jeff,
Thats a triple amen to that one...although I agree with the long putter rules changes! ;)
-
I think a rollback is a bunch of hot air that would result in very little change in who actually plays the game. I'm not sure if Mike Clayton mentioned it in this thread, but I've heard him talk about when the switch from the small ball to the big ball happened outside of the US. I'm too young to have experienced it, but I haven't heard about anyone who stopped playing the game even though they lost 20 yards over night. So we have a pretty good data point that suggests that people may complain (which I'm guessing they did back then?) but they accept it and move on very quickly.
Secondly, most people aren't very good at golf and they aren't really serious about getting better. While we all try to shoot the best score we can, I don't think it's the main thing that brings us out. So we must be playing the game for other reasons, like friendship or being outside for 4 hours, etc. These parts of the game will be just as much fun after a rollback and I think they are bigger drivers of play. I doubt there is a measurable difference in fun if you go from shooting 84 to 87 or 96 to 99. People will adjust in a few months and the game will be better for it.
-
Jeff. Many of the “rollbackers” are the same people who push for longer courses, creating the “massive course changes” you mention. That’s what creates the “maintenance, setup, safety and simple sustainability” problems. Leave the courses as they are and problem of increased maintenance and land cost does not occur. It’s the movement to protect par, and keep the scores what they were in the past, that has driven the course changes and the problems that come with that.
What the pro’s score is not important. It that is really a concern, make it a penalty to hit the ball over 275 yards :)
Leave the equipment alone. Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation. Equipment rollback would make the game harder for average golfers and accelerate the decrease.
As for safety, how will going to a higher spin ball decrease the off-line shots and address safety? It would make it worse (JK would get more balls in his pool…).
-
Leave the equipment alone.
Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation. Equipment rollback would make the game harder for average golfers and accelerate the decrease.
First of all--nobody's "leaving the equipment alone"
I wish they had, but that ship sails EVERY SINGLE YEAR-it does not remain static.
As to the second sentence, I strongly dispute that.
Can you really prove that some variable slows a decrease in something?
Won't an "average" golfer always be average?(except for those in Lake Wobegone?)
You don't think it's discouraging for club champions and decent club amateurs to be outdriven by 70-100 yards by elite players? as opposed to the 20-50 it used to be?
A more spinny ball may curve more but it's not going as far, so while John may have more balls in his pool, at least the house across the street not even on the course won't get pelted ;D
I'm guessing a guy who suddenly is noticing play is faster because the group in front of them is playing at 6500 yards rather than 7000, and is looking less further off line for balls will notice and appreciate that-and suddenly may play MORE golf because it takes 3:45 hours not 4 and 1/2.
I notice this in the winter when we play up a set of tees when the temperatures is in the 40's and the ball flies 10-15% less.
And the guy who is a club champ can be joined by his college aged son on those same tees, rather than being separated by 500 yards of tee and 75 yards of driving distance.
-
Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation.
Dave -
Is this assertion based on data or a gut feeling?
-
Jeff. Many of the “rollbackers” are the same people who push for longer courses, creating the “massive course changes” you mention. That’s what creates the “maintenance, setup, safety and simple sustainability” problems. Leave the courses as they are and problem of increased maintenance and land cost does not occur. It’s the movement to protect par, and keep the scores what they were in the past, that has driven the course changes and the problems that come with that.
What the pro’s score is not important. It that is really a concern, make it a penalty to hit the ball over 275 yards :)
Leave the equipment alone. Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation. Equipment rollback would make the game harder for average golfers and accelerate the decrease.
As for safety, how will going to a higher spin ball decrease the off-line shots and address safety? It would make it worse (JK would get more balls in his pool…).
So many weird thoughts in this post. I'll only address the first one: I can't think of anyone in favor of a rollback who also pushed for longer courses. I'm pretty sure none of the people signed onto the Rollback Alliance do.
-
Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation.
Dave -
Is this assertion based on data or a gut feeling?
Go to your local club. In the bar ask everyone to raise their hand is they want harder to hit clubs, or loss of distance on their shots.
I play with a lot of seniors who are thankful that equipment improvements have slowed the decline of their games. I've also seen many give up the game due to a decline. It stands to reason that hastening that decline would lead to hastening departures from the game.
-
Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation.
Dave -
Is this assertion based on data or a gut feeling?
Go to your local club. In the bar ask everyone to raise their hand is they want harder to hit clubs, or loss of distance on their shots.
I play with a lot of seniors who are thankful that equipment improvements have slowed the decline of their games. I've also seen many give up the game due to a decline. It stands to reason that hastening that decline would lead to hastening departures from the game.
Or . . . the fact that the cost of a premium driver today is roughly the same as the cost of an entire set before equipment exploded might have had the opposite effect.
I truly do not know what perspective is correct. For that reason, I do not favor going back to persimmon woods or something similar. I do not see such an approach being accepted by the public or improving the game significantly. The game is still difficult.
-
Improvements have helped to reduce the decrease in participation.
Dave -
Is this assertion based on data or a gut feeling?
Go to your local club. In the bar ask everyone to raise their hand is they want harder to hit clubs, or loss of distance on their shots.
Go to that same bar and ask everyone if they'd like to play 30 minute faster rounds..by walking shorted distances and searching for less balls (the targets are still the same size)
and I would argue that that "decline" you speak of with the seniors is more noticeable and more depressing when they are outdriven by 150-200 yards by someone with high speed who maximizes rebound effect and optimizes distance via multilayer balls that add distance off drivers and spin off wedges,
and less noticeable years ago when the gap wasn't so great due to low spin balls being chosen by low speed players and high spin balls being chosen by high speed players.
Besides, who said "hard to hit clubs" have to be mandated?
Lots of ways to come at this without normaliziing 350 yard drives by high speed players
-
As some have attempted to allude to above and elsewhere, there’s a much bigger picture than scoring and whether players in the bar want easier to hit clubs, distance etc. Folks play golf for many reasons other than score, ease of play and distance and will continue to do so.
A golf course though, takes up a big footprint on the ground. The further the ball goes, irrespective of why, the greater the footprint needed (and the greater the surrounding safety zone).
There are now approx 7.5 billion people in the world. All 7.5 billion, and their increasing by the day offspring, want somewhere to live, water to drink, clean, cook and land and water to grow and irrigate crops.
Do golfers seriously think the 7.5 billion and their increasing by the day offspring give a damn about golf?
When push comes to shove the offspring of the current 7.5 billion will if necessary pull down the fences, invade and squat on our precious golf courses, tap into the irrigation systems and grow crops on the greens and fairways.
Okay, I’m being deliberately provocative here to make a point but ultimately the game of golf is not as important as the game of life.
I’ve reposted Mike Cirbas excellent sentence before but here it is again -
“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, much as that may seem counter-intuitive.”
Atb
-
I think a rollback is a bunch of hot air that would result in very little change in who actually plays the game. I'm not sure if Mike Clayton mentioned it in this thread, but I've heard him talk about when the switch from the small ball to the big ball happened outside of the US. I'm too young to have experienced it, but I haven't heard about anyone who stopped playing the game even though they lost 20 yards over night. So we have a pretty good data point that suggests that people may complain (which I'm guessing they did back then?) but they accept it and move on very quickly.
Joe,
I think I mentioned it previously here but the evidence from Australia was there was barely a complaint about the switch and the overnight loss of '25 yards' Likely the majority barely noticed what they were losing.
Peter Thomson was an opponent of the change, articulating his argument that 'we shouldn't blindly be following the Americans'
He was both right and wrong. Right that we shouldn't be blindly following but wrong in that the change was necessary if the best players from outside of the USA had any chance to compete against the best players in the USA. It spawned the generation of Ballesteros,Norman,Faldo and Price.
Can anyone imagine what would have happened if the rest of the world had asked the American golfer (and manufacturers) to switch to the ball the majority of the world played?
-
“The game has been waging a battle against the inventor. The one aim of the inventor is to minimise the skill required by the game. The inventor has been allowed too much license.”
Just came across this “article of faith” of John Low written over 100 years ago. Seemed relevant to this discussion.
-
Nicely written -https://www.rollbackalliance.org/rollback-to-the-future/ (https://www.rollbackalliance.org/rollback-to-the-future/)
atb
-
James
Can you provide a link to the John Low essay ? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would enjoy reading it.
And to those Rollbackers that took the time to respond to my questions, thank you. Interesting responses and I think the main thing I took out of the responses was that there is no uniform idea as to what you want to roll back to. I've got to think that will not help your cause. I suggest you need a clear idea of what standard you are wanting and how to achieve it if you are to gather popular support. Just my opinion.
As for the roll back argument itself, it has been going on since before Low and yet the more the game has been "ruined" the more people play it. I'd also suggest that if the Haskell had never been invented and they had stuck with the gutta, then there is a very good chance that the golden age of architecture might not have happened. Now that is something for folk on this discussion board to conjure with.
Niall
-
If there were more people who wanted to “grow the game” because of the inherent great qualities associated with the game in its’ simplest form rather than for monetary gain, we wouldn’t need movements and organizations to “protect the game”.
*insert image of 20 guys on a green before a tournament, with one guy pointing to a spot on the green with the antennae of his walkie-talkie to indicate the”perfect” hole location for the day...right before the green gets mowed twice and rolled 4 times....*
-
Bravo Joe. You nail it with the renumeration angle along with how we've been failed by the protectors.
Nialls, If there was a time to pick, I'd suggest 1930. The year Bobby won the Grand Slam. His ethos is the one that should've been lighting the path.
That, or the year before they started to allow Pros into the clubhouse.
-
And to those Rollbackers that took the time to respond to my questions, thank you. Interesting responses and I think the main thing I took out of the responses was that there is no uniform idea as to what you want to roll back to. I've got to think that will not help your cause. I suggest you need a clear idea of what standard you are wanting and how to achieve it if you are to gather popular support. Just my opinion.
Niall
Niall,
I don't think one uniform distance exists because there is so much variability in the game, even between top notch pros who can be 40-50 yards from each other off the tee. I've always thought 20% is about right.
As for how to achieve it, its crystal clear what the answer is... the ball. I can 100% guarantee you the ball can be dialed back. Players can keep their current equipment, swing coaches, launch monitors, shrinks, and work out 10 hours per day in the gym if they like, but none of that will change the physics of when a modified ball with specific dimpling and core properties is struck, it will only go X amount of distance.
Change the Ball...Change the World!
-
James
Can you provide a link to the John Low essay ? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would enjoy reading it.
....
Niall
Niall
It’s taken from an article written by Tom Simpson, which I read in Fred Hawtree’s book “Simpson & Co”, but I’ve found an online copy here....
http://www.kellyblakemoran.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Articles-of-the-Faith-According-to-John-Low-by-Tom-Simpson.pdf (http://www.kellyblakemoran.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Articles-of-the-Faith-According-to-John-Low-by-Tom-Simpson.pdf)
-
James Reader:
Thank you for posting the link above.
There has been so much b.s. in this thread already that I don't know if anyone is thinking anymore, or just reacting, but I would like to direct the conversation toward one of John Low's points that seems to have been abandoned by good players today:
"The good architect will see to it that the hole proclaims that the powerful player who wishes to register the par figure, must keep well to the right or well to the left with tee shot at two-shot and three-shot holes, and so in each stroke there shall be some special interest for him, some special manœuvre as that practiced by the skillful billiard player who always has in mind the next stroke or strokes ahead . . ."
When I was starting our project in Houston, I read a couple of books about the way Tour players strategize around the course today - if you can call it that. It no longer has anything to do with trying to position themselves for the next strokes ahead; it's all about taking a penalty out of play 99% of the time. And the best players in the world today apparently need a 65-yard-wide target to do just that . . . because modern equipment has them swinging so hard and then hitting wedges into par-4 greens.
Does anyone think that Jones or Hogan or Nicklaus didn't concern themselves with angle of approach? We have lost the strategic element of the game, because modern players are LESS ACCURATE, because the equipment and set-up of courses no longer makes accuracy important to them. But we've even gone beyond that, because we have redefined accuracy to be irrelevant, and because the pros have deemed it to be unfair design to ask the player to hit into a less than 65-yard wide target from the tee.
They really think they should only worry about trouble 1% of the time . . . the very statistical point at which they shouldn't worry about it anymore.
If you read those last two sentences aloud to John Low in his grave, he might come out and do something about it. And, sadly, that seems to be the best chance we've got of anybody doing anything about it.
-
Sometimes it seems to me that ‘doing nothing’ is a reasonable and plausible stance. After all, there are several decent mid 70s courses within a 20 minute drive (and at least a dozen more within 45 minutes) that are still more than long enough for me, and that younger/longer hitters enjoy too — as they bomb away on the now-short-for-them Par 4s and happily hit wedges in on all the rest. In other words: it sometimes seems that the game is doing just fine, and that golf (and golf course architecture) is just where it needs to be — and that it currently serves me and every other golfer I know very well, and will continue to serve us well for many years to come.
And yet:
I can’t shake seem to shake the feeling (and, after reading posts like Ian A’s, the near certainty) that ‘doing nothing’ is, for anyone who cares about the game of golf, a very selfish and short-sighted stance indeed.
-
Tom
Are we going to discount the idea that strategy was built on width? I dare say the same sort of width you are claiming the pros demand. Granted, the pros, if it matters at all what they do, and I strongly believe it shouldn't, play whack and find golf. Much more importantly, a huge percentage of golfers, when we get right down to it, play whack and find golf. That is the reason why Ian states courses need to be wider, although, I am usually skeptical about decision making when H & S is the first reason for proposed changes.
Ciao
-
Tom
Are we going to discount the idea that strategy was built on width? I dare say the same sort of with you are claiming the pros demand. Granted, the pros, if it matters at all what they do, and I strongly believe it shouldn't, play whack and find golf. Much more importantly, a huge percentage of golfers, when we get right down to it, play whack and find golf. That is the reason why Ian states courses need to be wider, although, I am usually skeptical about decision making when H & S is the first reason for proposed changes.
Ciao
Sean:
Nothing of the sort. What I'm saying is that pros have rationalized that they NEED that much width BECAUSE they swing for the fences. And once you grant them the ability to swing for the fences with modern equipment, then the angle of approach doesn't matter anymore, because they are hitting wedge from wherever they are.
P.S. I agree with you that safety is a bad reason for width, but professional architects have a duty to think about it. Safety is also one argument by which architects can stop clients from squeezing corridors and selling even more housing, the way modern businessmen do. [Sadly, some use it the other way, to require changes to existing golf courses that will create work for themselves. All you have to do is mention "safety" to a client, and you've handed them a liability problem they are almost required to address.]
-
...
Does anyone think that Jones or Hogan or Nicklaus didn't concern themselves with angle of approach? We have lost the strategic element of the game, because modern players are LESS ACCURATE, because the equipment and set-up of courses no longer makes accuracy important to them. But we've even gone beyond that, because we have redefined accuracy to be irrelevant, and because the pros have deemed it to be unfair design to ask the player to hit into a less than 65-yard wide target from the tee.
They really think they should only worry about trouble 1% of the time . . . the very statistical point at which they shouldn't worry about it anymore.
If you read those last two sentences aloud to John Low in his grave, he might come out and do something about it. And, sadly, that seems to be the best chance we've got of anybody doing anything about it.
Hogan was one of the longest drivers in his day. When they held specific long drive competitions, he was always near the top. However, if you take plots of his positions during play, he was often well back of his rivals, because he played for position. Not just angle of attack, but also stance.
-
Not a lot of strategy needed to play a course that H&S has already shut down as the courses footprint is no longer large enough to accommodate the distance and width even amateurs hit the ball. No strategy at all. Clubs in the cupboard time.
atb
-
Not a lot of strategy needed to play a course that H&S has already shut down as the courses footprint is no longer large enough to accommodate the distance and width even amateurs hit the ball. No strategy at all. Clubs in the cupboard time.
atb
Is there an incidence of this happening or is this another example of H&S scaremongering?
Tom
All I am saying is that regardless of your professional obligations, I am not buying into H&S as a good reason for a roll back. That said, I can fully understand that clubs will feel it necessary to make changes due to safety reasons, but in the cases I can think of, the danger existed long before an sort of 330 yard driving frenzy. Its just that these days, H&S often gets cited (blamed) for decisions because its an easy cop out explanation.
Ciao
-
Not a lot of strategy needed to play a course that H&S has already shut down as the courses footprint is no longer large enough to accommodate the distance and width even amateurs hit the ball. No strategy at all. Clubs in the cupboard time.
Like Sean, I'm curious whether you know of examples of courses that have been shut down over health & safety issues.
I know of several good courses [including Royal Melbourne East, Moortown, and Mar del Plata in Argentina] where major changes to golf holes have been required, not for the better as far as golfers are concerned; but I don't know of any worthwhile course that's been shut down.
-
Was Woods at Hoylake the last time a pro implemented a strategy other than bomb & gauge?
Don’t we despise courses that are narrow and punitive that won’t let a player hit it anywhere with little thought to the consequence? Ie The set up at Paris National?
-
Some valid arguments on both side of this question, as usual.
Niall C at Post # 174 make a very good point that the argument of the Rollbackers is weakened by there not being a clear standard being proposed to roll back to.
I think it is also weakened by the lack of a proposed procedure to effect a rollback. There are many organizations that have a say, but the issue can't be dumped entirely in the lap of the USGA/R&A, with the Pro Tours on record as being opposed to any action. And the equipment manufacturers, of course, opposing. It’s not enough to say that these strong opposers need to be convinced it’s in their best interests. Really? How can this be done?
Is a rollback just wishful thinking? If not, what is the procedure for success? Who is really going to make it happen? Difficulty is not a reason to give up on a good idea, but is a rollback really going to ever get done? If so, how?
-
Jim,
The same way it happened in the early 80s when they rolled the ball back for all golfers outside of North America.
The two groups charged with running the game - USGA and R&A - do their job to protect the courses and the skills it takes to play the game and make the decision.
It's not that hard - the manufacturers don't run the game. It's like giving cigarette companies a place at the public health table. They don't care about the health of the public and manufacturers don't care about golf course architecture and how the game is played. All they care about is making the ball go further.
-
And, Mike, you don’t worry if the PGA Tour doesn’t go along? If they stay as is, and the change only applies to we recreational players, isn’t that reverse bifurcation?
-
Jim,
I thought the PGA Tour wanted to stay out of rules?:) Only when it suits them?
And the PGA Tour isn't the only tour in the world. What would happen is all the others - LPGA,Japan,Europe,Asia,Australia - all went with those charged with running the game?
It's a pity Deane Beman isn't in charge. He must be awfully disappointed, on this issue, with those who followed.
-
.........and once again we come back to using the pro's as the yardstick and gauge for deciding how the game should be run. Why ? Honestly, let these guys shoot low 60's all the time, they are very good after all.
The bulk of courses over here are probably less than 6,000 yards off the daily tees and yet they probably get as much traffic as they used to so clearly bigger club-heads and "better" balls aren't making them obsolete. Yes they will never hold an Open Qualifier but then they never would before.
Niall
-
This weekend I turned to my playing partners who all belong to multiple clubs and play over 100 rounds per year and asked what they would think of rolling the ball back 20%. It may have been the dumbest thing they ever heard come out of my mouth.
-
I did the same thing this weekend at our monthly tournament, but phrased it as: would you support a ball that went 40 yards less for elite players but only 4 yards less for you and everyone unanimously agreed that would be a great solution.
-
I did the same thing this weekend at our monthly tournament, but phrased it as: would you support a ball that went 40 yards less for elite players but only 4 yards less for you and everyone unanimously agreed that would be a great solution.
Pete,
I currently hit a 7 iron in ideal conditions 155 yds. How far would I hit it with your new ball?
-
Pete, why do you think that's possible technically--40 yards less for the Pros, 4 yards less for us? Of course, everyone would support that! But no one has ever shown that that is possible.
The only new ball that I have seen tested was by the R&A a few years ago--that went 8% less for everyone. So that would bring a pro down from 300 to 275 and us down from 220 to 205. That is a more appropriate question.
Tell me if you know differently.
-
John,
Off a tee I can hit it 145, 130-140 pff the deck. No big deal if it’s now my 125 Club. Better yet Mike G. won’t hit his 180 yards anymore!
Jim,
We can put a man on the moon but can’t design a new ball that plays like a Titleist balata used too? My impression, along with apparently many others on this thread, is that elite players have disproportionately benefitted from the current 3 piece ball. I doubt the benefits or roll back can be expressed in a true linear relationship.
-
This weekend I turned to my playing partners who all belong to multiple clubs and play over 100 rounds per year and asked what they would think of rolling the ball back 20%. It may have been the dumbest thing they ever heard come out of my mouth.
If you'd said 10% would their bemusement have been on the same level?
The problem with this argument is the game outside of Nth America went through this in the early 80s - we all gave up 25 yards - and no one gave up golf. They hardly complained.
The problem is the USA isn't the only dog in this fight.
-
Because of multiple sets of tees the distance I hit my drive is immaterial. The distance I have to carry hazards is not. Currently my maximum carry off a tight level lie in ideal conditions is 195 yds with a 5 wood. Cut that by 10 yds and my strategic options will be greatly limited. Throw in some wind and you have to ask yourself the sustainability of courses built after 1960. We made our bed now we've got to sleep in it.
-
“We can move all our tees forward if we wish, without investing more money in costly land, but we cannot keep on moving them backwards.” - Bobby Jones
-
"95% of lost balls are the result of not hitting the ball far enough." - Unknown
-
James Reader:
Thank you for posting the link above.
There has been so much b.s. in this thread already that I don't know if anyone is thinking anymore, or just reacting, but I would like to direct the conversation toward one of John Low's points that seems to have been abandoned by good players today:
"The good architect will see to it that the hole proclaims that the powerful player who wishes to register the par figure, must keep well to the right or well to the left with tee shot at two-shot and three-shot holes, and so in each stroke there shall be some special interest for him, some special manœuvre as that practiced by the skillful billiard player who always has in mind the next stroke or strokes ahead . . ."
When I was starting our project in Houston, I read a couple of books about the way Tour players strategize around the course today - if you can call it that. It no longer has anything to do with trying to position themselves for the next strokes ahead; it's all about taking a penalty out of play 99% of the time. And the best players in the world today apparently need a 65-yard-wide target to do just that . . . because modern equipment has them swinging so hard and then hitting wedges into par-4 greens.
Does anyone think that Jones or Hogan or Nicklaus didn't concern themselves with angle of approach? We have lost the strategic element of the game, because modern players are LESS ACCURATE, because the equipment and set-up of courses no longer makes accuracy important to them. But we've even gone beyond that, because we have redefined accuracy to be irrelevant, and because the pros have deemed it to be unfair design to ask the player to hit into a less than 65-yard wide target from the tee.
They really think they should only worry about trouble 1% of the time . . . the very statistical point at which they shouldn't worry about it anymore.
If you read those last two sentences aloud to John Low in his grave, he might come out and do something about it. And, sadly, that seems to be the best chance we've got of anybody doing anything about it.
Is my memory so bad that I am wrong that the balls in the 60s and 70s curved well more off line than current balls, especially in the wind? Wouldn't returning to that reality (if it was one) help address the 65 yard width dilemma?
Ira
-
This weekend I turned to my playing partners who all belong to multiple clubs and play over 100 rounds per year and asked what they would think of rolling the ball back 20%. It may have been the dumbest thing they ever heard come out of my mouth.
If you'd said 10% would their bemusement have been on the same level?
The problem with this argument is the game outside of Nth America went through this in the early 80s - we all gave up 25 yards - and no one gave up golf. They hardly complained.
The problem is the USA isn't the only dog in this fight.
I wish we could be more careful about the distance of the small ball back in the early 80's. I was a plus handicap golfer at that time and had an occasion to play that ball. In optimum conditions, baked out fairways and a wind at my back, I could drive 4 of the greens at my course that were each 300+ yds with the large ball. The only occasion where the small ball would be a benefit was into a head wind. I doubt that it rolled out much further and would question its ability to out soar a spinning larger ball with a tail wind. Overall I would give it a 5% advantage or around 8 yds for the expert player. That is only a guess because the only fact I know is that when given the chance I would always play the best ball possible and never felt the overall playability of the small ball exceeded the 100 compression Titleist Pro Traj.
Ira,
Back in the day of spinny balls roads adjacent to the course were in play than are now only a distraction. Back in the early 80's it was not uncommon to see a low handicap amateur golfer hit a drive up to 150 yds off line. Put that ball in the hands of a millennial and people will die. I still remember as a young man trying to shorten a dog leg left and hitting double cross so deep into a neighborhood that I jumped into my cart, drove to the clubhouse and went directly to my home. It was one of those morning paper moments that modern media has made obsolete.
-
Pete, why do you think that's possible technically--40 yards less for the Pros, 4 yards less for us? Of course, everyone would support that! But no one has ever shown that that is possible.
The only new ball that I have seen tested was by the R&A a few years ago--that went 8% less for everyone. So that would bring a pro down from 300 to 275 and us down from 220 to 205. That is a more appropriate question.
Tell me if you know differently.
Jim,
Geoff Shackelford, in his book "The Future of Golf" references an article in the December 2003 edition of Golf World, in which Top Flite Vice President of research and development Tom Kennedy states "the transfer of energy of the club to the ball at various speeds is not linear". He added that Top Flite could make a ball that goes a shorter distance at high swing speeds, while not changing the game for the average player.
If Top Flite felt they could do that sixteen years ago, Titleist can surely do it today. I have no doubt in the world they can. With their R&D, NASA scientists, their resources - no doubt. The question in my mind is why they feel they can't profit from marketing this ball - as that is surely the only reason it has not hit the shelves.
Matthew
-
Agree with Matt about the NASA scientists. Not able is not the reason.
I suspect the two driving factors in non-action to date are:
1) does it make sense to change so much for such a small percentage of participants?
2) what happens when you legislate away a hard earned market share? Titleist would likely have a good, and very expensive case...but I am not an attorney...
John,
It’s the 46” drivers sending balls further offline that in yesteryear, and the modern ball flying further once launched.
-
It is my contention that the balls of the early 80's went more off line than the balls of today. The duck hooks of yesteryear were to die for. I thought my house was being hit by drives from the tee being hit off line until I did some observation. The shots doing the most damage to my house are second shots. I am not 100% sure that a shorter ball that spins more would cure my problem.
-
I don't understand the lawsuit issue. They already make such lists. Are they getting sued by the ones who don't make the approved lists?
https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/conforming-club-ball-lists.html (https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/conforming-club-ball-lists.html)
-
What are you talking about?
If you’re responding to me, the conforming ball list wouldn’t be an indicator.
Titleist’s golf ball sales volume as a percentage of total golf ball sales is...
-
Jim,
I think Kalen is after some clarification regarding the grounds on which a ball manufacturer would launch legal action against the USGA and R&A should regulations regarding ball specs be changed, rendering previously manufactured balls no longer compliant with redrafted rules. He would not be alone in that instance, I am sure.
-
By rolling the ball back say 20%, the regulatory bodies would cut the knees out from under the leading market share golf ball companies, and all of the investment they've made and profit they're earning (and expecting to earn) as a result. These companies would have a case against them...in truth, I'd say it's limited to Titleist as the sole risk on the golf ball front.
I'm not assuring you they would win, but they have much deeper pockets and a deeply vested interest in winning.
Was that not commonly understood?
I can imagine it's not universally agreed to, or even a concern for the most ardent of rollback advocates, but surely its acknowledged as a risk, right?
-
Correct Jim. And thanks for the reply. It will clear a few things up for some who read this thread.
One thing that’s become apparent to me in all this - the level of assumed knowledge among some people in the discussion is not actually where the level truly sits.
Many golfers remain totally oblivious to the fact Nicklaus and Woods have been calling for reduced flight balls for a long time. No doubt some are not across the potential legal risks to regulators if a rollback is undertaken.
And yes - the risk of legal action upon the USGA and the R&A from Acushnet is a risk me and others clearly recognise - it is a significant barrier to action by the regulatory bodies. Another battle to be won if the Rollback Alliance aims are to be realised.
Matt
-
When I asked early in the thread what you would say to Jay Monahan and Keith Pelley I was serious. How do the PGA Tours and Acushnet win in this? How do they even hold their own?
Once those bodies are outside the boat, the USGA / R&A become irrelevant the minute the PGA Tour says no to this type of rule change...
Who wins the most with a rollback?
-
...
2) what happens when you legislate away a hard earned market share? Titleist would likely have a good, and very expensive case...but I am not an attorney...
...
This seems to me to be a nonissue. Titleist lost their market share before the ProV1. Nearly everyone else had a better ball, with Strata advertising they had the number 1 ball on tour. When they finally caught up technologically with the ProV1, they got their market share back. Why? Because the are Titleist.
-
“with Strata advertising they had the number 1 ball on tour.”
Haha...
Some of us were trying to have a serious conversation Garland...please...
-
And yes - the risk of legal action upon the USGA and the R&A from Acushnet is a risk me and others clearly recognise - it is a significant barrier to action by the regulatory bodies.
If the regulatory bodies framed a rollback and reduction in driver size as a matter of health and safety, the manufacturers wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Tour players are dropping like flies with back problems.
-
By rolling the ball back say 20%, the regulatory bodies would cut the knees out from under the leading market share golf ball companies, and all of the investment they've made and profit they're earning (and expecting to earn) as a result. These companies would have a case against them...in truth, I'd say it's limited to Titleist as the sole risk on the golf ball front.
I'm not assuring you they would win, but they have much deeper pockets and a deeply vested interest in winning.
Was that not commonly understood?
I can imagine it's not universally agreed to, or even a concern for the most ardent of rollback advocates, but surely its acknowledged as a risk, right?
Not acknowledged!
The technologies are all essentially equal. The USGA & R&A would simply define a new technology for them all to be equal on.
I see no valid issue for a law suit.
If Titleist had better technology, why did Tiger choose a different ball? To penalize himself?
-
“with Strata advertising they had the number 1 ball on tour.”
Haha...
Some of us were trying to have a serious conversation Garland...please...
So now you are into revisionist history?
-
Can you prove your course will have fewer injuries from incoming pellets after a rollback?
Could you prove recent injuries are the sole result of I&B technology?
I don’t think H&S has a leg to stand on...
This has to be in the best interests of somebody, other than the blood-sucking lawyers, right? Who is it?
-
Mark O’Meara won two majors in ‘98 with the Strata...I’m sure their advertising was based solely on that. I’d be shocked if they claimed to be the #1 ball beyond being the ball MO played...
-
To address some questions that were answered but continue to be asked:
Golf Ball - Technology is so advanced that manufacturers could absolutely create a "rollback to this" ball which would reduce the distance on high swing speed players by 10% or 20% while reducing the distance for slow swing speed players by nothing.
Don't worry, Titleist would still be #1. They sponsor the most pros and that is why people buy Pro V1s. Their "tour" golf ball is no different than Bridgestone, Srixon or TaylorMade. Especially for amateurs who don't flight their balls through "windows" and understand the benefits of different covers, cores and mantles for driver, iron and wedge spin rates.
What do we do with modern equipment?
Manage the CT / COR of club faces. This also creates a larger penalty on high swing speed players than those who swing at lower swing speeds.
The size of metalwood club heads could also be adjusted if desired. The larger the club head the bigger the advantage for high swing speed players. Many lower swing speed players, statistically, hit the ball farther with their 3 woods because it has more loft and has a shorter shaft making solid contact easier.
Going back to persimmon would be ridiculous.
Also - Every company is pushing the USGA limits right now. There is no "free 10 yards" for anyone in CLUB technology anymore. It's all about getting fit properly so the BALL should be the priority.
Irons - Irrelevant - Very few TOUR players or Top Ams play irons that provide extra distance due to consistency issues.
What about older people leaving the game due to equipment?
I haven't read anything from the NGF that would support the idea that modern golf equipment has increased the length of time golfers stay in the game. The cart yes, modern equipment - not proven. Just play the right tees.
Again, the lower your swing speed, the less modern equipment helps.
I don't really understand the "how does the TOUR win" question. Reducing distance off the tee would reward improved ball striking. There would still be golfers who hit the ball farther than their competitors, but they wouldn't have wedges into greens which would make TV more entertaining. Drivable short par 4s wouldn't go away or the 17th at Sawgrass. All should be fine with the world shouldn't it?
-
Mark O’Meara won two majors in ‘98 with the Strata...I’m sure their advertising was based solely on that. I’d be shocked if they claimed to be the #1 ball beyond being the ball MO played...
So Tiger conclusively demonstrates the other tour pros have to ditch the Titleist ball after the 2000 US Open. What are they going to do? Adopt Tiger's Nike ball? Adopt O'Meara's major winning Strata? Some other unproven ball?
-
To address some questions that were answered but continue to be asked:
Golf Ball - Technology is so advanced that manufacturers could absolutely create a "rollback to this" ball which would reduce the distance on high swing speed players by 10% or 20% while reducing the distance for slow swing speed players by nothing.
....................
Your assertion about advanced technology suggests that ball manufacturers could change the slope of the distance vs swing speed line to be flatter. (see this article for a graph of the current slope of the line with modern balls - https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html (https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html) The current balls go about 3 yards further per mph gain in swing speed. You're suggesting that they could build balls that only gain, say, 1 yard per mph gain in club head speed.
If that were true, why would the converse not be true? Why couldn't manufacturers today make a ball that goes the same distance for top end swing speeds but goes further for slower swing speeds. Why haven't the manufacturers built that ball if they have the advanced technology? It would conform and be a really hot seller for slow swingers.
I believe that no such technology exists. If you want to roll back the top end 30 yards then the bottom end is likely to lose about 30 yards too.
If the ball were to be rolled back I'm not sure why any manufacturer would be disadvantaged. People would still need to buy balls. Titleist would probably still have the lion's share of the market. People are buying the brand name more than they are some kind of superior technology in Titleist balls.
-
Matthew,
If you want to propose something specific for the ball, could I suggest that it could be as simple as changing the size and weight of the ball. The new standard could be 1.74" in diameter and 1.5 ounces in weight. A larger, lighter ball will go less far and be more susceptible to going off line. No need to get into spin or dimples or other esoteric specifications. Easy to specify and easy to monitor and approve. You could change the ODS and initial velocity standards in sync with the new weight and size too.
-
Bryan, thanks for the reply, and the considered suggestions. I appreciate the post, and the other thoughtful contributions in the thread.
The Rollback Alliance exists to promote informed, meaningful discussion that may precipitate regulatory reform, enacted by those who formulate the Rules of Golf. It is these bodies who will ultimately determine the degree of distance correction desired by revised laws pertaining to club and balls. They may also consider the element of ‘correctiveness’ possessed by balls and clubs – as the ‘de-skilling’ of the game courtesy of technology is obviously a factor equally worthy of attention.
I’m not certain the Rollback Alliance will be promoting a precise position regarding desired distance correction. We wish to provide a united voice urging reform. Contemporary voices, along with those who have said the same throughout the last century.
I think a return to the yardages seen in the amateur and pro games prior to the year 2000 is popular among the group. Our pilots and supporters are however of varying minds. Some favor bifurcation. Some prefer a universal rollback. Some favor ball and club reform, while others are happy to have club regulations left alone at this time.
We are however united in our belief that burgeoning club and ball technology is having a deleterious effect upon the game, and that action is required now. This is the message we wish to send the governors of the game. These bodies need to be emboldened and reminded that they are guardians of the game. They are the rightful governors of golf, and they need to govern. Perhaps Rollback Alliance will help prod them to do just this.
If the Alliance gains critical mass, it will signal to the R&A and the USGA that regulatory reform is urgent. It may also ease the process of implementation if more golfers are better informed. Some are clearly not so educated currently.
Bryan, your suggestion on weight and size is of merit, yet I also feel it may be a moot point. The manufacturers will no doubt have performed in-depth research and testing on balls made to a variety of potential future regulations. These will relate to a host of design elements apart from weight and size. I know I’d do that if I were in the manufacturer’s position. They will have readied for discussions and prepared new spec options they find palatable, should the USGA and R&A collaboratively approach the task of formulating new regulations.
Jim, how do you get the Tours on-side? I hope I answered it to your satisfaction in post #104. How do manufacturers win? Personally, I suspect it includes the following - a collaborative approach with manufacturers, very generous sunset clauses on existing ball specs, a degree of compromise on distance restriction, minimal rule changes on driver specs, and a universal rollback (no bifurcation) allowing Titleist et al to market the ball pros use to all golfers around the world. They may also go to market with new drivers – something they love doing! Their profit risk is mitigated by this approach in my personal and humble opinion.
Who wins with a rollback? Importantly, golf wins with revised regulations. There are safety, environmental, financial, and time gains to be had, among others. The scale of the game cannot continue to grow as it has. People need to realise that fundamental truth. The game will suffer in a number of ways, not least of which reputationally. The inherent strategy of the game will devolve, golf will be less skill dependant, and the cost of play will continue to rise. Innumerable courses of significance are already lost to the professional game – which is terrible. The re-establishment of a robust authoritative governing body would also be a welcome win should the USGA and R&A step up and do their job. The list of wins goes on. Rollback won’t change the world but it would deliver considerable wins for golf.
-
"Innumerable courses of significance are already lost to the professional game – which is terrible." Please give a specific example how this is terrible for a given course? Who is harmed by being a member of a course that does not host the pros?
-
John, future golfers will never see Cypress Point, North Berwick, Walton Heath, Seminole and other such courses on television. The inability of these courses to host professional play does nothing positive to foster greater youth participation in the game. Viewers and future golfers are instead largely fed an insipid diet of bland, purpose built TPC courses.
Neither the clubs listed above, nor the courses themselves are harmed per se, but I feel the the game as a whole suffers with their absence from our screens. You will celebrate seeing Royal Melbourne on your TV this December. You and others could experience that same feeling many more times each year if the scale of contemporary golf had not got out of hand.
-
Rolling back the ball to make for better TV doesn't fly. I am curious what we will find in the middle when both sides build their arguments on a foundation of bullshit.
-
I was just thinking about the future of golf as it relates to my grandson. It is my estimation that with current equipment we will be hitting the ball approximately the same distance in 10 years when he is 12 and I am 70. Wouldn't it be beautiful with this new ball you propose that as his swing speed increases into his teens and mine decreases as I age we continue to hit the ball the same distance off the tee? Isn't that how we want to raise our future children, robbing them of the joy of increased distance through hard work and dedication? I had a few broken windows in my youth because balls went further as I got stronger and I hope the same for my grandson, but that's just me.
-
Just for the record. The opposite of flubber is buffer. The new anti-energy transfer ball will be called the Buffer Ball.
Who wouldn't want hit the links and shoot some BB's?
-
Complex subject, for sure.
But the architecture keeps getting worse.
And uglier.
And ever-less sustainable.
Celebrate technology and artificiality and vaulting ambition (ie the Borg) and we all become merely cogs in the machine — with no Jean Luc Picard to fight against our inevitable assimilation.
Just like we’re now ‘consumers’ instead of ‘customers’ — not people but mindless entities that exist only to gobble up everything in sight.
I know, I know:
‘It’s their money, it’s their club, it’s their course — they have a right to do what they want’.
Golf’s epitaph.
-
Courses get uglier? I thought the work of Doak, C&C and Hanse was largely based on beauty. Firestone was built for balata.
-
Doak, C&C and Hanse build their new/original courses for guys like you and me (and just about everyone else here) -- and so they don't have to make them long (or ugly) despite the new club & ball technology because a) we don't hit the ball as far as we used to, and actually never did, and b) none of us are willing to pay big money only to be embarrassed by looking at our limitations face on: we're all become Jack Woltz: "A man in my position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous!" But I have in my mind's eye an image of what Merion (etc etc) looked like when first built -- once, years ago, before the confluence of money, ego, pride, ambition, and vanity took hold. There's a reason, I think, why the deadly sins were considered 'deadly'.
But perhaps I overstate my case.
-
Friars Head did not suffer at the hands of beauty yet was built by one of the finest players in the country. Pinehurst was made more beautiful in preparation for a US Open. Even Augusta National is more beautiful today than anytime in its long history.
-
I find a mountain that I can not climb more beautiful than the hill from which I spout my nonsense.
-
Matt, Jim, et.al.
Good points on the ball companies, even if it doesn't seem they have a leg to stand on, I don't doubt them using the legal system to bully the governing bodies...
All the more reason it seems the path for the PGA Tour and USGA is to have thier own ball for approved events, that way they aren't explicitly excluding anyone, just using a specified ball like pretty much every other sport. I'm guessing hockey, football, baseball, basketball, tennis, etc doesn't have to deal with this nonsense...
-
I find a mountain that I can not climb more beautiful than the hill from which I spout my nonsense.
Terrific line, nicely done.
But then presumably you'd find playing a shorter ball more satisfying than hitting a 7 iron, which was a 5 iron, further than you used to hit your 4 iron.
-
I find a mountain that I can not climb more beautiful than the hill from which I spout my nonsense.
John,
Permission to steal whenever fits my circumstances at the time? Will be often.
Ira
-
I think our primary problem is people listening to the person with the highest station/loudest bull horn....instead of simply evaluating/processing the message.
-
I think our primary problem is people listening to the person with the highest station/loudest bull horn....instead of simply evaluating/processing the message.
So far the biggest bullhorns have belonged to those with a vested interest of keeping the gravy train rolling.
by merely threatening the vanity of aging men.
the game and the venues be damned.
Imagine quitting a game you love because suddenly fairways and corridors played wider, the game was faster to play(for you and those in front of you) , and countless incredible historic courses could be returned to the entertainment arena of elite events-to say nothing of a reasonable comparison to bygone eras.
I get that antirollbackers don't want change.
That ship sailed, and resails every year.
reset
-
As an side to this debate, I for one am far from convinced that most golfers could tell whether or not they're playing with a rolled-back ball. Some could but I reckon they'd be in the minority.
And of course if you top it, fat it, thin it, shank it, lose it, miss it even it doesn't matter what kind of ball you're using. Some folks even play with range balls, or balls they've found in a pond or the rough and some play with what they think are perfect brand name balls but that may well be counterfeit or re-conditioned.
atb
-
Further to the discussion on the previous pages regarding a variable distance design ball, here's the thoughts of John Solheim back in 2011 -
http://www.golfdigest.com/story/pings-solheim-distance-proposal (http://www.golfdigest.com/story/pings-solheim-distance-proposal)
and Mike Davis on the issue in 2017 -
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-executive-director-says-variable-distance-ball-could-be-part-of-golfs-future (https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-executive-director-says-variable-distance-ball-could-be-part-of-golfs-future)
Food for thought.
-
Matt,
He actually said "AntiRollBackers don't want change", I think Jeff is on the Roll Back train.... ;)
-
Matt,
He actually said "AntiRollBackers don't want change", I think Jeff is on the Roll Back train.... ;)
Ah ha - re-read. Sorry for the mistake. Edited.
-
Because of multiple sets of tees the distance I hit my drive is immaterial. The distance I have to carry hazards is not. Currently my maximum carry off a tight level lie in ideal conditions is 195 yds with a 5 wood. Cut that by 10 yds and my strategic options will be greatly limited. Throw in some wind and you have to ask yourself the sustainability of courses built after 1960. We made our bed now we've got to sleep in it.
Perhaps hit a 3 wood?
-
I wish we could be more careful about the distance of the small ball back in the early 80's. I was a plus handicap golfer at that time and had an occasion to play that ball. In optimum conditions, baked out fairways and a wind at my back, I could drive 4 of the greens at my course that were each 300+ yds with the large ball. The only occasion where the small ball would be a benefit was into a head wind. I doubt that it rolled out much further and would question its ability to out soar a spinning larger ball with a tail wind. Overall I would give it a 5% advantage or around 8 yds for the expert player. That is only a guess because the only fact I know is that when given the chance I would always play the best ball possible and never felt the overall playability of the small ball exceeded the 100 compression Titleist Pro Traj.
John,
If it's true the playability of the Titlest Pro-Traj (a great ball for the US but not so good in Aust or GB because of the windier conditions) was superior why did almost every single American who played in The Open (pre 1974) or down in Australia (1978) use the small ball?
Jack Nicklaus went from the Australian Open and The Dunlop International in late 1971 to team with Lee Trevino in the World Cup in Florida the following week and used the 1.62 ball.
It was the same weight and noticeably smaller and to think it only went 8 yards further is fanciful. I grew up playing the small ball and transitioned and it was way more than 8 yards.
150 yards off line? I played with a lot of good players in the 80s and never saw such a shot. Not even Anders Forsbrand hit it that far off line on his bad days - and he was as wild a good player as there ever way He made Seve look like Ben Hogan.
I've never seen more high blocks with the modern ball (not so many duck hooks) and they go much further off line than the old ball/driver combination. It's not the ball though - it's the club in the hands of strong blokes who get it way inside with an open face and catch it in the middle. It's because all they do is bash it as hard as they can.
-
I wish we could be more careful about the distance of the small ball back in the early 80's. I was a plus handicap golfer at that time and had an occasion to play that ball. In optimum conditions, baked out fairways and a wind at my back, I could drive 4 of the greens at my course that were each 300+ yds with the large ball. The only occasion where the small ball would be a benefit was into a head wind. I doubt that it rolled out much further and would question its ability to out soar a spinning larger ball with a tail wind. Overall I would give it a 5% advantage or around 8 yds for the expert player. That is only a guess because the only fact I know is that when given the chance I would always play the best ball possible and never felt the overall playability of the small ball exceeded the 100 compression Titleist Pro Traj.
John,
If it's true the playability of the Titlest Pro-Traj (a great ball for the US but not so good in Aust or GB because of the windier conditions) was superior why did almost every single American who played in The Open (pre 1974) or down in Australia (1978) use the small ball?
Jack Nicklaus went from the Australian Open and The Dunlop International in late 1971 to team with Lee Trevino in the World Cup in Florida the following week and used the 1.62 ball.
It was the same weight and noticeably smaller and to think it only went 8 yards further is fanciful. I grew up playing the small ball and transitioned and it was way more than 8 yards.
150 yards off line? I played with a lot of good players in the 80s and never saw such a shot. Not even Anders Forsbrand hit it that far off line on his bad days - and he was as wild a good player as there ever way He made Seve look like Ben Hogan.
I've never seen more high blocks with the modern ball (not so many duck hooks) and they go much further off line than the old ball/driver combination. It's not the ball though - it's the club in the hands of strong blokes who get it way inside with an open face and catch it in the middle. It's because all they do is bash it as hard as they can.
Great comments
especially the high blocks part-in the air a long time and scary off line.
The bane of those of us who grew up playing a big inside out draw.
Less spin can be a real killer for an old school push drawer, and the reason you see SO many left to right players these days.
Way easier to time and low spin equipment means no loss of distance being on top of it and cutting it
-
Mike,
The Pro Traj was not introduced until 1975. When I speak of good players hitting the ball 150 yds off line I was talking about my friends who were very fine athletes outside of golf. It's like marking telephone poles after a flood. I can show you where flood water has reached that defies all common sense and engineering principles. Sadly I can also show you where friends of mine hit golf shots of the same remarkable caliber. It's one of the beauties of playing the same course for over 50 years.
-
To address some questions that were answered but continue to be asked:
Golf Ball - Technology is so advanced that manufacturers could absolutely create a "rollback to this" ball which would reduce the distance on high swing speed players by 10% or 20% while reducing the distance for slow swing speed players by nothing.
....................
Your assertion about advanced technology suggests that ball manufacturers could change the slope of the distance vs swing speed line to be flatter. (see this article for a graph of the current slope of the line with modern balls - https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html (https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html) The current balls go about 3 yards further per mph gain in swing speed. You're suggesting that they could build balls that only gain, say, 1 yard per mph gain in club head speed.
If that were true, why would the converse not be true? Why couldn't manufacturers today make a ball that goes the same distance for top end swing speeds but goes further for slower swing speeds. Why haven't the manufacturers built that ball if they have the advanced technology? It would conform and be a really hot seller for slow swingers.
I believe that no such technology exists. If you want to roll back the top end 30 yards then the bottom end is likely to lose about 30 yards too.
Hi Bryan - Very interesting link. Quite fascinating based on the available data showing how much distance pros have picked up with "the modern ball" versus amateurs.
If you speak with a club fitter who spends time with golfers who have a range of swing speeds you will find the following.
1) The ability to manage launch and spin is a much larger advantage for high swing speed golfers vs low swing speed golfers. It's just math.
2) The gains from properly fit equipment benefit high swing speed golfers much more than low swing speed golfers. In fact, driver shaft selection is much more important at high swing speeds than low swing speeds - i.e. after market shafts start to prove a clear advantage
3) Manufacturers have made golf balls for lower swing speed golfers and that is the foundation of Bridgestone's marketing campaigns. i.e. buy the right ball for your swing speed - Because a "tour level" ball isn't the right one for amateurs anyways. Why? They don't get the advantage of the TOUR level modern golf ball.
-
To address some questions that were answered but continue to be asked:
Golf Ball - Technology is so advanced that manufacturers could absolutely create a "rollback to this" ball which would reduce the distance on high swing speed players by 10% or 20% while reducing the distance for slow swing speed players by nothing.
....................
Your assertion about advanced technology suggests that ball manufacturers could change the slope of the distance vs swing speed line to be flatter. (see this article for a graph of the current slope of the line with modern balls - https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html (https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html) The current balls go about 3 yards further per mph gain in swing speed. You're suggesting that they could build balls that only gain, say, 1 yard per mph gain in club head speed.
If that were true, why would the converse not be true? Why couldn't manufacturers today make a ball that goes the same distance for top end swing speeds but goes further for slower swing speeds. Why haven't the manufacturers built that ball if they have the advanced technology? It would conform and be a really hot seller for slow swingers.
I believe that no such technology exists. If you want to roll back the top end 30 yards then the bottom end is likely to lose about 30 yards too.
Hi Bryan - Very interesting link. Quite fascinating based on the available data showing how much distance pros have picked up with "the modern ball" versus amateurs.
Can you point to the "available data" you're referring to? The USGA study is quite clear:
"In short, there is no extra distance "bonus" for high swing speeds. This is true for balls used on the PGA Tour, and all others as well. In fact, distance does not even increase in a straight line (see Figure 1): there are diminishing returns at higher swing speeds – just the opposite of the popular misconception. To be sure, hitting the ball faster means it goes farther; it's just that you don't get quite as much bang for the buck at the highest speeds.
If you speak with a club fitter who spends time with golfers who have a range of swing speeds you will find the following.
1) The ability to manage launch and spin is a much larger advantage for high swing speed golfers vs low swing speed golfers. It's just math.
I don't follow this point. More skilled players are more likely to be able to manage their swing, driver and ball to achieve optimal launch conditions and distances. But optimal launch conditions don't disproportionately advantage higher swing speeds. See the the Trackman optimal launch conditions for various swing speeds at the following link: https://trackman.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115006035208-Driver-Optimization (https://trackman.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115006035208-Driver-Optimization)
2) The gains from properly fit equipment benefit high swing speed golfers much more than low swing speed golfers. In fact, driver shaft selection is much more important at high swing speeds than low swing speeds - i.e. after market shafts start to prove a clear advantage
I don't buy this "benefit" either. Where is the evidence? Have you read the Wishon book on driver fitting. There are a number of swing attributes besides swing speed that affect what shaft will help any player achieve optimal launch conditions. All the major manufacturers give you after market shaft options when you lay out your $600 for a new driver these days.
3) Manufacturers have made golf balls for lower swing speed golfers and that is the foundation of Bridgestone's marketing campaigns. i.e. buy the right ball for your swing speed - Because a "tour level" ball isn't the right one for amateurs anyways. Why? They don't get the advantage of the TOUR level modern golf ball.
No doubt different balls and their interaction with the driver and the player's swing can help achieve the optimal launch conditions. A "tour level" ball may well be the right one for an amateur based on their swing and driver, regardless of swing speed. The advantage from "tour level" balls is that they spin less off the driver and more with wedges. That can be an advantage for anyone if you can use those features to achieve optimal driver launch conditions and you have good hand/eye coordination that gives you a good short game that you can play in the air.
-
Mike,
The Pro Traj was not introduced until 1975. When I speak of good players hitting the ball 150 yds off line I was talking about my friends who were very fine athletes outside of golf. It's like marking telephone poles after a flood. I can show you where flood water has reached that defies all common sense and engineering principles. Sadly I can also show you where friends of mine hit golf shots of the same remarkable caliber. It's one of the beauties of playing the same course for over 50 years.
Maybe - but the Titleist 1973 ball was also pretty good I assume. And do we think if the Pro Traj had been available in 1973 at Troon the American pros would have chosen it over the small ball?
-
Funny that we are talking about might have beens at a tournament where Gene Sarazen had a hole in one. I am personally amazed that the American pros could go overseas and play a ball "25 yds longer" and dominate in the manner that they did. Perhaps that had as much to do with going to a standardized ball as anything. The ole, if we can't beat em, join em paradigm.
What would be interesting to know would be how much money was brought into the European game by Americanizing the sport. It just feels like someone and possibly everyone got paid to go to the bigger ball.
-
Jim Hoak, Bryan Izatt & others,
Rob Rigg has mentioned a variable distance ball in several posts now. You have both asked for clarification on a design that would deprive short hitters appreciably less distance than a Tour professional. I am like Rob, in that I believe such a design exists, and that manufacturers are able to mass produce and market this model - perhaps we call it the Zapruder ball for the time being.
Here is an excerpt from an article by Golf Digest writer Mike Stachura written in 2018 -
"The rule-makers haven’t offered a timetable for making a decision on a potential rollback, but they have been studying shorter-flying prototype golf balls since 2005. Golf Digest obtained samples of one of the prototype balls and tested it at four swing speeds: the ball lost 22 - 32 yards at 120 and 105 miles per hour and 7 - 10 yards at 90 and 75mph."
Link to the full article is here - https://newzealandgolfdigest.co.nz/distance-debate-mike-stachura/ (https://newzealandgolfdigest.co.nz/distance-debate-mike-stachura/)
Matthew
-
Matthew,
Do you understand the difference between a pro at 120 mph swing speed and me at 90? They can far afford to lose 32 yds off their drives than I can 10. That ball is a mitigated disaster and most likely a plant to deter a rollback.
-
John, recreational / amateur golfers may well move up a set of tees as part of a rollback.
-
John, recreational / amateur golfers may well move up a set of tees as part of a rollback.
The 90-75 mph swing speeds already have moved up.
-
Matthew,
Do you understand the difference between a pro at 120 mph swing speed and me at 90? They can far afford to lose 32 yds off their drives than I can 10. That ball is a mitigated disaster and most likely a plant to deter a rollback.
I swing at 100 mile an hour and I lose 25 yards on my drive (carry) by playing in the morning in winter. I have no idea how far any given drive goes. If I lost 10-15 yards due to the ball I doubt I would be even able to tell.
-
Funny thing happened this week. One of my playing partners has been scoring and winning quite well lately and told me that he followed my advice. He said that he went to the range and spent some time figuring out exactly how far he hits each club, primarily his wedges. I couldn't believe a scratch golfer over a lifetime of some 40 playing years had never done that before.
Perhaps there are legions of golfers out there just swiping at the ball with no idea how far any shot goes from day to day. They don't deserve to have voice in the rollback discussion. Nothing gets better legislating to ignorance.
Here is how it is going to go. The rollback alliance will scare avid golfers into bifurcation because it's seen as a win/win. Once we accept that we no longer play the same ball as the pros the flood gates will open allowing recreational golfers the opportunity to play even longer balls. 90 mph swings speeds will hit the new hot amateur ball the 280 yds they only think they hit it now.
So there you have it. A bifurcated game where amateurs hit it even further than they do now. Be careful what you ask for.
-
Nah...if bifurcation were the chosen route, it would be temporary by default.
The wanna be's would all play the "approved" equipment and their buddies would follow suit. Before long you wont be able to get a game unless you play the approved stuff.
Still not the best course...but certainly not a big deal.
Either forget about the TV guys or roll everything back 20% so we can see the TV guys play the best courses...
Oh, and maybe save a little water along the way...
-
The wanna be's would all play the "approved" equipment and their buddies would follow suit. Before long you wont be able to get a game unless you play the approved stuff.
The Goodale theory of bifurcation leading back to unification.
-
I'm 59 years old and follow golf exclusively on my phone. Do you really believe that televised golf will play a role in this issue in 10 years. Wanna see a great course? Follow Cavalier on Instagram.
-
John, recreational / amateur golfers may well move up a set of tees as part of a rollback.
The 90-75 mph swing speeds already have moved up.
Bullocks John,
If anything , they keep moving back, this is a big part of the problem
I've never seen anyone other than very old men, women, and kids play the up tees...it just simply never happens...
-
Kalen,
If you only look in the bowels of society you are going to see shit.
-
Kalen,
If you only look in the bowels of society you are going to see shit.
Hilarious John, another groan-worthy pun to deflect the fact that you're actually full of shit... ;D
-
All I'm saying is that at the top 1000 finest private courses in the country 90-75 mph swing speeds have moved up. If not they would be escorted off the course.
-
I've never seen anyone other than very old men, women, and kids play the up tees...it just simply never happens...
How often are you getting out to play? I'm quite certain John is out there in the trenches every day.
-
Because of multiple sets of tees the distance I hit my drive is immaterial. The distance I have to carry hazards is not. Currently my maximum carry off a tight level lie in ideal conditions is 195 yds with a 5 wood. Cut that by 10 yds and my strategic options will be greatly limited. Throw in some wind and you have to ask yourself the sustainability of courses built after 1960. We made our bed now we've got to sleep in it.
Perhaps hit a 3 wood?
The old wind bag can't get a 3 wood airborne. ;D
-
Garland,
I carry a two wood that carries less far in the air than my five wood. After careful reflection back on my golfing life I am confident that anytime that I try to carry a hazard more than 200 yds out I benefit by laying up. If I lay up to 70 yds I have a 50% chance of making par with bogey being my highest score 98% of the time. Trying to carry a hazard more than 200 yds does not improve my par chances and brings double bogey into play at a minimum of 40% of the time. Please note that I do not keep stats and these numbers are at a primal level.
I do promise than anyone besides the finest golfers would score lower over their lifetime if they follow the above advice. Sadly it takes some age, humility and a well worn wallet to reach that conclusion.
-
Couple of points here. Firstly the winner out of a roll back would be Titleist. At some point all the balls in circulation would need to be replaced even the rebirthed second hand ones so I'd expect ball sales to increase for a number of years after a lull when the change is announced. If you are like me you have a few dozen balls "in stock" that you'd need to use up so that might slow things for a few months.
Secondly to John's concern about losing 10yds. As Dave points out there is probably more than 10yds of variation between drives now and adding a new tee for slower swing speeds is going to be a lot cheaper than buying land to build a new tee 30yds further back because the ball keeps getting longer and an increasing number of players, particularly younger ones, have high swing speeds.
For all the fixation on distance, and the massive amount of money golfers spend chasing it, I'm pretty sure it hasn't resulted in many 12 markers playing off scratch. It's sold a lot of gear, made Wally and others pretty rich, yet the average handicap hasn't moved. The crux of the argument is simple. It's much cheaper, easier and more sustainable to make the game of golf a little shorter than have it continually getting longer.
-
Funny that we are talking about might have beens at a tournament where Gene Sarazen had a hole in one. I am personally amazed that the American pros could go overseas and play a ball "25 yds longer" and dominate in the manner that they did. Perhaps that had as much to do with going to a standardized ball as anything. The ole, if we can't beat em, join em paradigm.
What would be interesting to know would be how much money was brought into the European game by Americanizing the sport. It just feels like someone and possibly everyone got paid to go to the bigger ball.
A hole on one with a 5 iron on a 125 yard hole.
The American small ball winning pros in the 70s - Nicklaus,Trevino,Weiskopf dominated because they were the best players in the world at the time. It was hardly surprising they won.
The rise of European golf was dependent on their best young players of the next generation - Seve et al - learning to compete with the big ball and by the end of the decade Seve had won The Open. So in that sense, you're right. Their brilliance bought a lot of money into European golf.
-
It's sold a lot of gear, made Wally and others pretty rich, yet the average handicap hasn't moved. The crux of the argument is simple. It's much cheaper, easier and more sustainable to make the game of golf a little shorter than have it continually getting longer.
bingo
-
I wonder what the rollbackers think of this.
"Hogan’s Alley” The sixth hole on the Championship Course was officially renamed on Wednesday 24th September 2003 as Hogan’s Alley by our 1999 Open Champion, Paul Lawrie. To commemorate Ben Hogan’s feat in 1953, today’s professionals were invited to take part in a longest drive competition using a 1953 driver and old 1.62 golf balls. The winner was Arjun Atwal with a drive of 251 yards. Other notable entries were Paul Lawrie 245 yards, Adam Scott 231 yards, Vijay Singh 219 yards, Colin Montgomerie 203 yards and Sam Torrance 200 yards."
-
adding a new tee for slower swing speeds is going to be a lot cheaper than buying land to build a new tee 30yds further back because the ball keeps getting longer
I never thought I would see such a histrionic response from a man of your stature, Brian. How many Sandbelt and Heathland courses have had to buy land to extend their courses?
For all the fixation on distance, and the massive amount of money golfers spend chasing it, I'm pretty sure it hasn't resulted in many 12 markers playing off scratch. It's sold a lot of gear, made Wally and others pretty rich, yet the average handicap hasn't moved.
There are other variables at play that are just as likely to have led to handicap levels not changing much. It's a poor argument that better equipment hasn't lowered handicaps.
You blokes need to stop hanging around with each other so much - you all sound the same. :)
-
Mark,
December will be a bit of a tipping point. When the President's Cup is played at RM people will see how much the game has changed. RM has no more land to push tee's back. Unless the ball is rolled back they will need to start buying land if they want to remain relevant. Likewise I'm not sure how much further Kingston Heath can be stretched (they have just added new back tees on 11 and 18).
How many Sandbelt and Heathland courses have had to add back tees? How many can continue to add length before they run out of land?
-
Mark, I can’t speak about the London heathlands, however I can comment on the Melbourne Sandbelt.
Kingston Heath has acquired multiple properties on the perimeter of the course, which made sense from a boundary safety perspective. Since I first played there more than 20 years ago, holes 2,6,11,12,13 & 18 have new back tees, and there are possibly more holes that do (14 & 16?). The new tees in 2 & 13 could not have been added should boundaries not have been extended. The course still plays quite short for elite amateur competition, much less Tour pro events.
Yarra Yarra is hopelessly troubled by boundary issues.
Royal Melbourne has been stretched significantly. East and West. The Club purchased a property beyond the original course boundary, and in recent years has extended the 15th tee onto what was a neighbouring residential property as recently as 2015. Dr John Green’s residence was purchased, the old home demolished, and much of the block now serves as a safety buffer from errant long second shots into the second green in East.
Driving ranges at KH, Commonwealth, Metropolitan are all too small to function as they did 25 years ago, much less as they were intended at the time of design.
Several clubs have incurred significant cost in erecting safety fences and nets on their periphery. God knows what insurance premiums Woodlands deal with, due to balls going onto White Street off holes 1 & 2. Same with Victoria on holes 2 & 3.
The issue might be more significant than you think. And that’s to say nothing of a loss of strategic intent.
Matt
-
Victoria purchased a property behind the 18th tee 15-20 years ago to eek out a few extra metres.
-
Ah yes, insurance premiums (and restrictions, liability levels, payouts and the like). I did wonder when that would crop up. The world has changed over the last few decades. Incur damage or get hurt ... call a lawyer/insurance company.
Golf better get it's own house in order or restrictions, not necessarily ball/club related, will be imposed from outside. Dare I say it, good or bad, but there's an opportunity here for a golf version of Ralph Nader.
atb
-
Jim Hoak, Bryan Izatt & others,
Rob Rigg has mentioned a variable distance ball in several posts now. You have both asked for clarification on a design that would deprive short hitters appreciably less distance than a Tour professional. I am like Rob, in that I believe such a design exists, and that manufacturers are able to mass produce and market this model - perhaps we call it the Zapruder ball for the time being.
Here is an excerpt from an article by Golf Digest writer Mike Stachura written in 2018 -
"The rule-makers haven’t offered a timetable for making a decision on a potential rollback, but they have been studying shorter-flying prototype golf balls since 2005. Golf Digest obtained samples of one of the prototype balls and tested it at four swing speeds: the ball lost 22 - 32 yards at 120 and 105 miles per hour and 7 - 10 yards at 90 and 75mph."
Link to the full article is here - https://newzealandgolfdigest.co.nz/distance-debate-mike-stachura/ (https://newzealandgolfdigest.co.nz/distance-debate-mike-stachura/)
Matthew
Beyond the part you've quoted, the article provides no further information about the ball or the test that produced the results quoted. If the yardage losses are ranges for the club head speed ranges mentioned, it makes no sense that there is a discontinuity at 97.5 mph. If the four loss numbers relate to the four club head speeds then they describe a non-linear relationship which would also be strange. But, with technology, I'd never say never - maybe it's possible. I remain skeptical for now.
If manufacturers could produce a ball where the slope of the yards gained per mph of swing speed line was flatter than current balls and if they could make the top end conforming, that ball would be on the market now and selling like hot cakes. Why would the manufacturers hold it back since it would be conforming and would advantage all of slower swing speed golfers by adding yards to our drives.
As a side note I asked the two guys I was playing men's night with if they would be bothered by a roll back and they both thought a roll back was a good idea. Both have already moved up to the most forward men's tees. Nobody, including our 85 year old male member, has moved up to the more forward red tees. It seems to me that from an ego perspective none of the men will ever move up to the red tees.
-
Interesting observations with your playing partners Bryan.
Regarding science, do you think dimple depth variations, even two thousands of an inch, make a marked difference to golf ball flight?
-
I cringe when I hear antirollbackers/bifurcators state that courses and clubs should "not care what pros shoot" or where elite players drive the bal-and they are just 1%.
That's not reality and clubs of course do care.
There are hundreds of otherwise excellent golf courses that time has passed by and memberships are struggling, or green fees are low because they are considered "Holiday" courses-especially in the UK.
And courses such as Myopia or even NGLA haven't been considered for championships for years, though NGLA (after building multiple new tees) had the Walker Cup in 2013.
Does this affect the other 99%. Strictly speaking no, but way more than 1% hit it far longer than the scale intended for the course and corridors-even if they are 10 handicaps. And the rest of the members often take pride(and incorporate it into their marketing and business plan) in their course hosting significant events.
Scoff if you will, but it's a reality and Merion just spent 20 million to avoid going the way of Inwood and other Championship obsolete courses.
the fix is so simple...and it's gathering momentum
-
I cringe when I hear antirollbackers/bifurcators state that courses and clubs should "not care what pros shoot" or where elite players drive the bal-and they are just 1%.
That's not reality and clubs of course do care.
There are hundreds of otherwise excellent golf courses that time has passed by and memberships are struggling, or green fees are low because they are considered "Holiday" courses-especially in the UK.
And courses such as Myopia or even NGLA haven't been considered for championships for years, though NGLA (after building multiple new tees) had the Walker Cup in 2013.
Does this affect the other 99%. Strictly speaking no, but way more than 1% hit it far longer than the scale intended for the course and corridors-even if they are 10 handicaps. And the rest of the members often take pride(and incorporate it into their marketing and business plan) in their course hosting significant events.
Scoff if you will, but it's a reality and Merion just spent 20 million to avoid going the way of Inwood and other Championship obsolete courses.
the fix is so simple...and it's gathering momentum
Here Hear!!
-
...
If manufacturers could produce a ball where the slope of the yards gained per mph of swing speed line was flatter than current balls and if they could make the top end conforming, that ball would be on the market now and selling like hot cakes. Why would the manufacturers hold it back since it would be conforming and would advantage all of slower swing speed golfers by adding yards to our drives.
...
I don't think you can say "the top end conforming", and "advantage all of slower swing speed golfers by adding yards to our drives". To add yards to our drives, you have to not be top end conforming. It seems to me that if you make our drives longer, you will naturally make the top end nonconforming. The issue is lower the top end, while limiting the loss for the rest of us. No manufacturer is going to make that ball, unless they are making a ball specifically for short courses in the Cayman Islands.
-
Interesting observations with your playing partners Bryan.
Regarding science, do you think dimple depth variations, even two thousands of an inch, make a marked difference to golf ball flight?
Dimple size, number, pattern and depth all affect ball flight. Manufacturers have been trying to optimize that for years and have come up with many variations. For me, the differences are lost in the variability of my swings and contacts. For tour pros I imagine that they make enough of a difference that they can tune their game to a particular ball and its dimple pattern.
-
Dimple patterns -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeibKavgytc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeibKavgytc)
atb
-
Garland,
The hypothesis was that there was a test ball that lost less at low swing speeds and lost more at high swing speeds. Graphically that suggests a flatter distance to swing speed line. For discussion, a slope of 2 yards per mph loss vs the current 3 yards per mph. As I understand it, you are suggesting that the flatter distance gain/loss slope can only occur if the top end distance is reduced. I was hypothesizing that with adjustments in the ball design and composition that the manufacturers could possibly achieve the flatter slope without lowering the the top end distance. But, this is all just hypothesizing since there is no information on what this "test" ball is and how it's been tested.
-
As has been stated many times in this thread, "the fix is simple." How the 1% hit the ball is critically important; if "progress" continues unabated, and the tremendous resources invested by Titelist et al suggest it will, will ANY of the traditional courses be usable for championship play? I play at White Bear Yacht Club, a classic course that can be stretched to just short of 6500 yards- just as it was in 1915, when it opened. We have no possibility to lengthen the course (thank heavens). But young players with single digit handicaps can hit it 250-300+ yards regularly, defeating the great rolling layout that makes the course play longer than the yardage would suggest. So the impact is felt everywhere, not just in the pro ranks. Until the USGA and the R&A are willing to challenge the rich and powerful golf equipment manufacturers, we're just '...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." So, GO ROLLBACK ALLIANCE!
-
How is the telecast of the BMW this week less exciting because of modern equipment?
-
Another solution to the problem--for which I'll surely get roundly booed on this site--is to modify the courses, not the equipment.
Is it really that important that the Pros and elite amateurs play the great classic courses of the world? Maybe we build Tournament courses--designed only for these 1% elite players? Make them as long as you want. Leave the traditional courses for the rest of us. Would this really be the end of the golf world? Is there some god-given right for pros to compete on classic courses?
I obviously see some issues with this solution, but it gets back to my concern that the dog's tail of elite golfers is wagging the dog's body of the recreational golfers of the world.
For the record also--I don't see the hypocrisy of saying that we should be much less concerned with what the 1% does. And I also don't buy the simplistic statement that the solution to a golf ball that goes less far for the 1% but not less for the 99% is "a simple fix." We'll see.
-
It’s always people from the peanut gallery telling other people what not to do to their courses. If you really want change join a classic course and work from within. Just please don’t stand outside the gate and yell at the members. You wouldn’t do it at the zoo.
-
"I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for difficulty is its greatest charm. But when, in spite of vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting." - Bobby Jones
Everyone owns a small piece of the greatest courses of the world. The aspirational and inspirational effects of seeing the greatest holes and the greatest courses on the screen is immeasurable and significant. Youth who see holes at Pebble Beach, The Old Course, Augusta National, Royal Melbourne and elsewhere on their TV during their formative golf years are on occasion, deeply affected. These courses belong to the game as a whole, not just the members of the particular clubs attached to the courses in question. The entire game has a right to comment on them, a wish to see them on their screens, and a right to protect them from harm. Perhaps we disagree on that point - so be it.
The notion I would work from within is attractive though John - I'm more than happy to receive immediate membership at the R&A, so as to undo the needless changes to the Eden green, and address mowing lines. In the absence of that fanciful chain of events, I will continue to engage in educated, and respectful discussion on such matters as architecture and the ball.
-
Everyone owns a small piece of the greatest courses of the world.
I've gotta take issue with that statement.
It took me a couple of projects to understand that once I was finished with a new course, it was no longer mine. It was owned by the client or by the members, and up to them what happened from then on. I would only continue to be involved if I kept up the relationship. It's sort of like being a parent, with a shorter gestation period.
I also learned from speaking out about changes to The Old Course at St. Andrews, that the more you claim some stake in a famous old course, as an outsider, the more determined the owners are to not listen to you.
So, we don't own the golf courses. You're better off making a case that we all, collectively, own the game itself.
-
In the United States, the owners of the courses own the courses. No one else. It's not a matter of opinion on which people can agree to disagree. It's a statement of law. There's already plenty of evil afoot from people who seek power by claiming rights as "stakeholders" in the property of others. Let's not add to it. I accept you're motivated by love of the game, and I hold no firm opinion on roll-back, but you're not going to like the extension of your principle regarding "ownership" to Americans who despise the game and would like nothing more than to re-purpose the land.
-
I cringe when I hear antirollbackers/bifurcators state that courses and clubs should "not care what pros shoot" or where elite players drive the bal-and they are just 1%.
That's not reality and clubs of course do care.
They care in Australia (not that anyone in USA cares about Australia in this fight) because the best courses here were designed as our championship courses - courses played by members who understood they would be difficult but would be the places where important state and national championships would be help.
Despite years of trying to keep up (and we have been involved in many) they are all obsolete if the measure of how the original designers saw them playing. Sure, MacKenzie would not expect them to go back to how they played with hickory but he could rightfully expect his long two-shot 2nd at Royal Melbourne was more than a drive and a 7 iron.Or the cross bunkers on 17E were still relevant.
The Presidents Cup at RM in a few months is going to be eye-opening as to how short the course now plays. Should they care? Absolutely because Mackenzie would care and its his treasure.
-
I think a rollback is inevitable because we aren't even close to what's possible in terms of how far the best players will be able to make the ball go.
Physics - and the current Rules - disagree with this. We see guys on the WLD hitting 200 MPH, sure, and missing a 60-yard wide grid by 30 yards with six of their eight swings. Preposterous statements like this hurt the case of the pro-rollback people.
When holes are longer – they require more water.
Not necessarily. If you have a 400-yard hole and you move the tees back 10%, without extending the fairway further back, what extra land are you watering? The tees are the same size. The fairway is. The green is. Who cares about the rough in front of the back tee?
Under 100 my guess is hardly anything at all - certainly nothing noticeable and nothing that would affect a score. Or as Phil Blackmar once said 'does it really make any difference if you shoot 86 or 88?'
To the guy now shooting 88, I think it matters quite a bit, yeah.
Then there are the simplified rules...
Name one person who knows the rules better now than they did a year ago.
I'd bet not one person who didn't bother to learn the rules pre revision that would suddenly bother to learn them now that they're "simplfied", while the thousands who did know them are simply confused and bemused.
What's the point of this in this context of this discussion?
They're simpler, so as players learn them, they'll be easier to learn and apply. For new players, they're easier. And, they make more sense - you can move a leaf in a penalty area or a bunker, now, just like you can elsewhere on the course. (For example.)
And, I could name several people who know the Rules better now than they did before.
I find it surprising someone could hold a contrary view to you Ian, given what you see, how long you’ve been in the field, and how succinctly you express your observations. Particularly given that you stand to profit from consulting in the problems caused by escalating distance, yet speak about curtailing it.
He stands to profit from consulting about courses forced to handle a rolled back ball, too.
Which is why amateurs spending all this money buying hope haven't lowered their scores.
They have lowered their scores. This is untrue.
The gain was not equal, the reduction will work out the same way.
Because ams were playing Pinnacles. They were already playing legal distance balls. The pros could have played them back then, too.
I play with a lot of seniors who are thankful that equipment improvements have slowed the decline of their games. I've also seen many give up the game due to a decline. It stands to reason that hastening that decline would lead to hastening departures from the game.
Golf could lose millions of players overnight.
Go to that same bar and ask everyone if they'd like to play 30 minute faster rounds..by walking shorted distances and searching for less balls (the targets are still the same size)
So now we just get to make things up? Slow players will still play slowly. If they're still hopping in their carts and hitting the ball five or six times per hole, they're not going to be shaving time. Furthermore, the vast majority of courses are long enough as it is for the golfers and equipment now. Hitting the ball shorter could increase round times, as players hit the ball more times to cover the same distances. Otherwise, what, they'll have to construct new shorter tees?
But we've even gone beyond that, because we have redefined accuracy to be irrelevant, and because the pros have deemed it to be unfair design to ask the player to hit into a less than 65-yard wide target from the tee.
I believe that's an incorrect characterization of the 65 yards. Those 65 yards are between penalty shots - OB, penalty areas, etc. It does not mean fairways are 65 yards wide, and it has not been "deemed… unfair".
We can put a man on the moon but can’t design a new ball that plays like a Titleist balata used too?
And yet, there was a Pinnacle available (and legal) right alongside the Balata. Better players CHOSE the balata because they needed the control/spin.
Geoff Shackelford, in his book "The Future of Golf" references an article in the December 2003 edition of Golf World, in which Top Flite Vice President of research and development Tom Kennedy states "the transfer of energy of the club to the ball at various speeds is not linear".
It wasn't linear… better players lost distance relative to the shorter hitters. Diminishing returns at higher speeds.
Again, the lower your swing speed, the less modern equipment helps.
This is not accurate.
John, future golfers will never see Cypress Point, North Berwick, Walton Heath, Seminole and other such courses on television.
I'm 41. I never saw them on television. I've survived.
----------
Those of you proposing a 20% roll-back… Do you realize how huge that is? Rory McIlroy is second on the PGA Tour for 2019 at 317.2 yards. He'd be hitting it less than 253.76 yards. 254 yards! That would have ranked 111th on the PGA Tour for driving distance in 1980.
20%? Good luck convincing the average golfer his 200-yard tee shots should go as far as his six hybrid (?) does now. And, the scale of the game would be all thrown out of whack: an approach shot from 150 yards would play like an approach shot from 187.5 now. The greens would be the wrong size.
I don't expect any real responses. This post was just for my benefit, to get some things out of my system.
If you're pro-rollback, you're doing yourself a disservice when you make false statements and some other things. You hurt your case.
-
...
Golf could lose millions of players overnight.
[/font]Go to that same bar and ask everyone if they'd like to play 30 minute faster rounds..by walking shorted distances and searching for less balls (the targets are still the same size)
So now we just get to make things up? ...
You make up a doozy, and then you challenge shorter courses taking less time to play?
:o ::)
-
Erik,
The longest players in every generation from Ray to Jones to Snead to Jack to Norman to Daly to Tiger to Champ have always been the norm in the next.
Why wouldn't that continue? If Champ becomes the norm then every course becomes par 68 and full of driver and wedge par 4s.
At some point it stops (they aren't going to ever run the 100m in 7 seconds - not without some serious drugs anyway) but it's already too late for so many of the game's great courses - if you think it's important they play somewhat close to the intent of their designers.
The next generation will learn to swing it at 130mph and get their ball speed to 195+
Amateurs have lowered their scores?
Pretty hard to prove either way but according to Google/USGA it's 15 - so a 90 shooter.
I think there is a legitimate argument to say the ease with which players can now bash away with clubs more forgiving than ever has de-skilled a lot of them.
Just like what I'm doing now has ruined our ability to match the quality of the handwriting of our grandparents time.
-
It clear from reading through this thread that the game is already bifurcated. Not between pros and amateurs but between traditional and American golf.
Carts, forced carries, lakes, soft greens, homogenized playing conditions. Once these are part of the game distance is more of a thing. A green is designed to be approached with a six iron and all sorts or architectural contortions are performed to make this happen for as many players as possible. Holes are designed from the tee forward, and carry distance becomes the defining architectural feature off the tee.
I get that players that grew up playing golf this way would be anxious about anything that stops the average golfer carrying the ball as far as they currently do.
I grew up playing courses with 2 sets of tees, no water hazard, that play through all 4 seasons of the year, where greens are designed so the ball can run onto them, where hazards are often designed to be hugged, not carried. For me there is no issue playing a shorter ball, because in these conditions, the shorter ball doesn't affect the enjoyment of the game.
-
There are hundreds of otherwise excellent golf courses that time has passed by and memberships are struggling, or green fees are low because they are considered "Holiday" courses-especially in the UK.
Jeff
Are you suggesting that clubs are struggling because they are now too short for the ball/technology and that suddenly they will be OK if either they are lengthened to "championship" length a la Merion, or alternatively if the ball is rolled back they will suddenly have a queue of new would-be members ?
Either way, I think the suggestion is beyond credible in a UK context. There are many reasons why clubs are struggling just now that are largely down to socio-economic factors, not because courses have become functionally obsolete (which by and large they haven't).
As an aside the term holiday course isn't a derisive description to a lot of golfers over here. It might be to the odd visitor golfer or scratch golfer who is after "championship" golf but the great many fully enjoy there holiday golf.
Niall
-
"I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for difficulty is its greatest charm. But when, in spite of vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting." - Bobby Jones
Matthew
As a matter of interest, what do you think Jones was actually advocating in that quote ? I'm not sure it means what you probably think it does, assuming you think he's referring to a rollback.
Niall
-
Niall, I don't think it relates to a rollback at all. I was more drawing on Jones suggesting "he cannot help protesting" - a feeling to which I certainly relate.
-
Everyone owns a small piece of the greatest courses of the world.
I've gotta take issue with that statement.
It took me a couple of projects to understand that once I was finished with a new course, it was no longer mine. It was owned by the client or by the members, and up to them what happened from then on. I would only continue to be involved if I kept up the relationship. It's sort of like being a parent, with a shorter gestation period.
I also learned from speaking out about changes to The Old Course at St. Andrews, that the more you claim some stake in a famous old course, as an outsider, the more determined the owners are to not listen to you.
So, we don't own the golf courses. You're better off making a case that we all, collectively, own the game itself.
Tom,
You are, of course, right in asserting only owners and clubs own their courses.
I'm more interested in the other thrust of Matthew's assertion, that there are many of us who came of age seeing places like Pebble, St. Andrews, Harbour Town and many of the classic U.S. Open venues on TV and it stimulated our desire to learn more about golf courses.
At the rate things are going kids may not have that exposure for long. Someone even in a recent post above alluded to something that sounds crazy but might not be, that perhaps pro tournaments be held only at courses designed or altered for their extreme games, TPC's on steroids.
Where would golf (or architecture) be in the future if kids only saw on TV these Tour-ready, pimped out 8,000-yard courses? Better yet, where would golf be now if owners and club members had only been exposed to courses like Pinehurst, Aronimink, Bel Air, etc., and not the long, verdant, lush CBS spectacles of the last 40 years?
This is not an argument -- I know you're in favor of some kind of legislative modulation. But I took away something different from Matt's post.
-
Kids do not watch TV. Unless of course it is on the back of a headrest as you drive them either to or from another travel team event.
-
"I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for difficulty is its greatest charm. But when, in spite of vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting." - Bobby Jones
Matthew
As a matter of interest, what do you think Jones was actually advocating in that quote ? I'm not sure it means what you probably think it does, assuming you think he's referring to a rollback.
Niall
In 1926 or '27 Jones advocated the adoption of a "floater" ball standard. (I don't have the cite at hand.) So I would think he is suggesting a "rollback", at least to that extent. As we all know, the floater was tried for a while later that decade; it proved unpopular and the USGA caved. But any rollback will be unpopular. Those of us advocating such a step should be willing to weather that unpopularity. (Though I think the backlash will be less than feared.)
Bob
-
I must say, the roll back scheme seems to be about a shotgun scatter effect. Even as someone who has played golf his entire life, the string of arguments rings rather hollow. There are various ways to approach the issue, pick an argument and present it well...keeping in mind that the specific problem of the ball going too far is only an issue for an extremely small percentage of golfers. It doesn't do any good to suggest we all suffer if one suffers because its simply not true. Notwithstanding Tom's comments about my earlier post, my argument would be to address the issue at hand rather than make rather dubious claims about how we all own a chunk of CPC, scaremongering about lawsuits etc. I would also say that if the tours aren't onboard, so what. Urge the ruling bodies to move on with the idea that some scaling back is a start of what could be a long process.
Ciao
-
A little addition to the pro scoring element of the debate - https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/15/medinah-carved-up-a-par-5-almost-averages-under-4-on-the-pga-tour?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/15/medinah-carved-up-a-par-5-almost-averages-under-4-on-the-pga-tour?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Make of it what you wish.
Atb
-
There are hundreds of otherwise excellent golf courses that time has passed by and memberships are struggling, or green fees are low because they are considered "Holiday" courses-especially in the UK.
Jeff
Are you suggesting that clubs are struggling because they are now too short for the ball/technology and that suddenly they will be OK if either they are lengthened to "championship" length a la Merion, or alternatively if the ball is rolled back they will suddenly have a queue of new would-be members ?
Either way, I think the suggestion is beyond credible in a UK context. There are many reasons why clubs are struggling just now that are largely down to socio-economic factors, not because courses have become functionally obsolete (which by and large they haven't).
As an aside the term holiday course isn't a derisive description to a lot of golfers over here. It might be to the odd visitor golfer or scratch golfer who is after "championship" golf but the great many fully enjoy there holiday golf.
Niall
Niall,
Of course there are too many golf courses and that is the root cause of why many courses struggle.
You and I know they are not "funtionally obsolete" for anyone but that doesn't matter to the hot shit young exec from Aberdeen or New York who wants credibility. (He ain't joining a "Holiday" course when his buds are all members at an Open Q site or a modern monstrocity.)
That said, I have seen the term "Holiday" course used very often(even here) almost as an apology and interestingly that attracts me and nearly always it's course I love,but they are most decidedly not considered as Open qualifiers etc. which is an oft used marketing strategy by clubs-hurting sales to rank and files golfers.
And they certainly aren't heavily patronized by the travelling golfer-yet nearly always have compelling architecture albeit on a reduced scale which is totally neutered or at least marginalized(regardless of what they shoot) by good players.
Building new tees(not at all what I suggest as that's a sure recipe for further financial problems) or reducing the ball wouldn't "instantly" do anything, but over time, some of these gems WOULD indeed be used for competitions and taken more seriously by younger decent players looking for a home base.
These courses weren't designed in 1877 to be "Holiday" courses. They just became that as technology improved and new shiny toy courses emerged over the last 100 plus years.
I'd go farther out on a limb and say that we wouldn't have had so much shite designed vapid modern courses if the ball had remained static from say 1900 and we'd be playing in less time on more sustainable 5000 yard courses where strategy not raw distance mattered.
The fact that I can book such courses a week in advance on a Saturday morning is resounding evidence that the rest of the world (including the UK) does not share the view you and I do, yet nearby Castle Stuart or any other "championship" course an American has heard of is 2-5 X the price and unavailable on a weekend morning.
Even Tom Doak dismissed many of these charming shorter well pedigreed courses due to their length in his 1980's version of the CG(which he was afraid they(his intended audience of friends) would dismiss as low hdcpers)
Would a rollback immediately change this?
No, but people would sure wonder why they were playing a 7000 yard crappy parkland when they could have so much more fun on an interesting design that was no longer as obsoleted by tech.(and more importantly being recognized as viable again by local Golf associations)
You think Merion's demand for guest play has risen since 2013?
And for the record IMHO that's not always a good thing to an already successful club.
Imagine all the course in the US that would be considered for majors again if the ball went 15-20% less.
and the world could see a new course considered for majors wouldn't have to be beast walk like Erin Hills, Chambers Bay,etc.(or The Bridge in its original form)
In the UK the rota is set, but certainly other top events could be played on a wider range of courses.
Gailles Links, which you're familiar with, has back tees in the stratosphere, which is the ONLY reason they use it for Final Open Qualifying(no chance without them) so yes other courses could do that-or we could reduce the ball and instantly have hundreds if not thousands of courses available for competition and continued member enjoyment of faster rounds.
Does my argument have holes in it?
Of course.
But what we've doing the last 20 years has far more holes and there is NO end in sight. and it's been Trumpized (normalized).
And recently the rank and file even talk about "something needing to be done"
Cuz guess what-next year's Epic goes 2.6 yards further and new tees are still getting built and more "irons only" driving ranges are being created
-
Kids do not watch TV. Unless of course it is on the back of a headrest as you drive them either to or from another travel team event.
Speak for your own kids.
-
Erik,
Your post about Rory hitting 255-260 is exactly the point. Restoring 400 yard par 4s to being at least somewhat challenging for the pro instead of driver and flipping a lob wedge. And restoring 450 yard par 4's to being tough holes again instead of "standard length". Think of all the classic venues that would instantly be viable again for top level competitions? And think of all the different ways players could gain an advantage on thier competitors instead of just who can bomb it furthest.
As for an across the board Rollback, I've been very clear from the start that bifurcation is the best way to go. We already do it partially, just need to extend the scope.
-
As seen on Twitter
Bradley S. Klein
@BradleySKlein
Why punish the 99.92% of golfers who play recreationally for what 0.02% of golfers are doing professionally?
Bifurcation is much simpler to administer without further handicapping golfers or creating the impression that their difficult game is going to be made even harder
-
As seen on Twitter
@BradleySKlein
Why punish the 99.92% of golfers who play recreationally for what 0.02% of golfers are doing professionally?
Bifurcation is much simpler to administer without further handicapping golfers or creating the impression that their difficult game is going to be made even harder
I'm not convinced that taking quotes direct from Twitter is appropriate. Over time such quotes, which are usually just a few unsupported words, can be trashed or agreed with but those herein won't know of the arguments and counter arguments.
Nevertheless, let's break this quote down.
I wonder how many of the 99.92% could tell if they were playing with a rolled-back ball? Not many I suspect, although obviously all of us posting herein would be able too! (sic) :) :)
If you top your shot it won't matter if the ball your using is a rolled-back one or not. Same if you hit the shot fat etc etc. Only proper/quality full-shot strikes are likely to be effected by a rolled-back ball and I suggest most amateurs, who are essentially social/hobby/exercise/recreational/occasional golfers, rarely hit proper/quality shots so any rollback effect will be undetectable.
And then there's putting and chipping, which comprise a very significant element of the shots played during a round. I can't imagine a rolled-back ball will effect the act of putting and chipping.
And then, as others have highlighted, there's that proportion of amateur golfers who can hit the ball similar distances to the 0.02% who are pro's* but are nothing like as skilful nor as accurate and thus spray shots way left and right including over the proverbial fences. This is where much of the issue lies.
But then again, even for a descent amateur player, such as those relatively few who inhabit the area between the pro's and average social/hobby/exercise/recreational/occasional golfers, is there going to be any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a 80% ball on an 80% length course? Same number of shots I suggest. Lots of benefits for golf and modern society in playing shorter though. Not many, if any, in playing longer.
atb
* 0.02 seems quite a high figure unless all club/range pro's, assistants, senior/mini-tour players etc etc are included.
-
As seen on Twitter
Bradley S. Klein
@BradleySKlein
Why punish the 99.92% of golfers who play recreationally for what 0.02% of golfers are doing professionally?
Bifurcation is much simpler to administer without further handicapping golfers or creating the impression that their difficult game is going to be made even harder
While not disagreeing with the bifurcation thesis...
I do tire of the relentless comments about the "difficulty" of the game.
For multiple reasons-
but mainly because anything worthwhile is usually difficult, and perseverance, self control and patience are three of the main skills in golf.
If it were "easy' everybody would be great and where would the challenge and inevitable addiction be?
My least favorite students are the one's whose expectations are far out of touch with their own ability,and make others miserable around them with their vocal expectations of perfection and impatience.
I've almost never met a person I didn't like who was an avid golfer, and many of the worst people I've ever met tried golf and quit because(in their opinion) of all of golf's perceived failings.
Golf unlike many other things in life is not HARD-just hit it and go hit it again and enjoy the journey with lifelong friends.
-
As seen on Twitter
Bradley S. Klein
@BradleySKlein
Why punish the 99.92% of golfers who play recreationally for what 0.02% of golfers are doing professionally?
Bifurcation is much simpler to administer without further handicapping golfers or creating the impression that their difficult game is going to be made even harder
Bradley is a member of this site. If he wants to argue his point, he can get on here and do so. Otherwise he just seems to be taking Trumpian pot shots.
-
My personal point of view is that I'm in my 70s and really don't care. I now play the white tees (about 6000y +or-) at my 3 home courses (senior friendly ratings/slope)) and in a few years, if I'm still able or around, I'll move up to the red tees as many do here and play 9 holes only. I'll stock up on current balls and not play in handicap events. Maybe I'll get a non-comforming driver too. ;D
However, I do agree with Brad Klein that bifurcation is easier to implement.
I'd like to see a PGA Tour Player hit my 7i 200y. ;D
How long will it take for this " Rollback" to take effect?
-
Steve,
I think that's where some are getting hung up, a timeline for a rollback. Of course it won't happen overnight, but given changing the ball is the primary thing they need to address first, I would think a reasonable timeline of a few years would be very doable. And then a phased approach where they look at playing equipment after that.
But doing nothing because it seems like "too big of a task" or "we don't know enough" ensures nothing will be done...
-
Well... that solves my problem but I'd still like to see a PGA Tour Player hit my 7i 200+y using a Srixon Soft Feel ball. ;D
-
You make up a doozy, and then you challenge shorter courses taking less time to play?
:o ::)
I didn't "make" anything up. I said it could happen, I didn't say it would. Old guys losing 20% of their distance? Many of them might just say screw it and keep playing their old now illegal stuff, but others will just quit. They hate that they're shorter every year already, to take off 20%? Ha.
And shorter courses in no way guarantee less time to play, not with a shorter ball, let alone 30 minutes! Hell, at Lake View - the course I grew up playing - you walk or ride past the back tees to get to the front tees. Moving up would just increase the green-to-tee walk time.
The longest players in every generation from Ray to Jones to Snead to Jack to Norman to Daly to Tiger to Champ have always been the norm in the next. Why wouldn't that continue?
Because of physics, and your own bit about running 100m in 7 seconds.
I've been on record as saying I don't care that much that ALL of the old courses are playable by the game's top 0.001%. 6500 yards is plenty for 95% of golfers - actual golfers.
Amateurs have lowered their scores?
About three shots in the last 30 years, yeah, according to GHIN.
Also, though you like to say often that the golf world already "gave up 25 yards when they abandoned the small ball" (paraphrased of course), I don't think it's 25 yards at all. I've not seen anything which says it's 25 yards for even the best players (of which you were at the time, of course), and even if it was 25 yards for the best players, it would have been less (like 15 or something) for amateur golfers, and even then, only with drivers: their 7-irons might have gotten only 5 or 6 yards shorter.
Your post about Rory hitting 255-260 is exactly the point.
If you think a 20% roll-back is needed, you're freaking nuts. Courses would have to redesign their entire golf course to build SHORTER tees. There'd be fields between greens and the next tee. Rory hitting it 254 is a freaking joke. 111th in 1980 on the PGA Tour… with steel, persimmon, balata…
Think of all the classic venues that would instantly be viable again for top level competitions?
You know, months ago, I asked for a list of all these courses that the PGA Tour can no longer visit, or those that can no longer host majors, solely for the reason of length (not infrastructure, not because they don't want to host, etc.). Crickets. A few courses were named, like Cypress Point.
But so what? Cyrpess Point is still playable by 95% of people (if they could actually get on to play it).
The list is small. They're still playing Oakmont, Pebble, The Old Course, etc. Yes, they're scoring well, but your complaint isn't about that: it's about whether they're even playing them, whether they're on TV.
-
Erik,
I stated this in another thread after the low scores at The Open. I specifically addressed restoring shot values that would bring scores under control, especially in light of what we're seeing at Medinah...
"I understand what VK is saying with defenseless courses as they relate to equipment related distance gains, so I'll try to elaborate:In a previous post he talked about a 15-25% distance rollback.
So all numbers I use assume an average of 20%.For example on 17, a 415 yard par 4:- Instead of players bombing it 320 off the tee and catching the speed slot to get 25-30 more. Now they hit it 256 (80% of 320) and are on top of the hill with 415-256 = 159 remaining.- And now instead hitting that 160 yard PW, which is only 128, now its a 7 iron, (which used to be 200, but is now 160)
.And then on say 18, a 460 yard par 4:- Instead of playing it safe with a 260 yard 3 iron, which now only goes 208, they are forced to use a 3W or Driver to leave a reasonable approach of 200.- And instead of hitting a 200 yard 7 iron, (which now only goes 160), they now must use the 4 iron which now only goes 195ish.
These are only two specific examples, but you can do this on every hole to get the gist of VKs message... which is you wouldn't need the weather to protect the course's shot values because these players would have to use longer less accurate clubs on shot after shot, hole after hole... ergo built in protection. It restores the value of shot making as opposed to Bomb and chip on 400+ yard holes, and Bomb and mid iron on par 5s. And it also completely ends the course lengthening arms race...."
-
6500 yards is plenty for 95% of golfers - actual golfers.
6500 5,500 yards is plenty for 95% of golfers - actual MALE golfers.
And for 95% of women it's a lot less.
atb
-
Kalen,
When you're doing your distance change examples you might want to use the real PGA Tour averages as provided by Trackman. The average for a 7 iron is 172 yards of carry. How much roll out, of course, depends on the topography and condition of the landing area.
https://dk-9a31.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/pgatourstats.png (https://dk-9a31.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/pgatourstats.png)
For those considering rolling back the driver in some way, what would you do with 3 woods which are still mostly small heads, lower COR, and shorter shafts but which most pros can still hit almost as far as their drivers.
-
Erik,
We can argue the distance difference - but what ever it was and it was very noticeable especially into the wind (and easier to hit straight too) the point is the evidence was no one - or very few - gave up golf because they lost distance.
Nor has my timeline (Ray - Champ) anything to do with physics - not yet anyway. No one yet can run 7 seconds but Champ can drive it further than almost all his contemporaries and history tells us that will be the norm in a decade. At what point is something too far?
-
I stated this in another thread after the low scores at The Open.
20% is absolutely nuts.
We can argue the distance difference - but what ever it was and it was very noticeable especially into the wind (and easier to hit straight too) the point is the evidence was no one - or very few - gave up golf because they lost distance.
No, Mike, because there's a BIG difference between giving up 5 or 6 yards and giving up 20%. Y'all hurt yourselves by making such bad arguments. You hurt your cause, your case.
No one yet can run 7 seconds but Champ can drive it further than almost all his contemporaries and history tells us that will be the norm in a decade. At what point is something too far?
History doesn't tell us that, because again, we're running up to the limits of how far a legal ball and club can go and still be accurate enough to play the PGA Tour.
What's Champ done since winning? Missed a ton of cuts. Cameron Champ may not even be sustainable.
-
Zinger just said
"I thought the 63 would never be touched"
The 63 was shot YESTERDAY-breaking Thursday's CR.
Zinger also said "with US Open width fairways and 4 1/2 inch rough"
as I type JT is putting for ...60...with a bogie-AND a ball in the water on the 338 yard par 3 15th (err par 4).
Keep hearing the round is historic
Can't wait til tomorrow......for more "history"
for those saying "the weather is dictating scores"
it's rained a few times in Medinah in the last 40 years,don't remember any 63's (edit: 61's)
carry on
Wrong thread?
Not really-might as well start one for East Lake now
-
Jeff,
With all credit to your Sirius XM cohorts we need to rollback the course maintenance. Members rarely see their course in the same optimum scoring conditions as the pros. It’s not that hard to start sinking birdies when every putt goes exactly where you aim.
-
Jeff,
With all credit to your Sirius XM cohorts we need to rollback the course maintenance. Members rarely see their course in the same optimum scoring conditions as the pros. It’s not that hard to start sinking birdies when every putt goes exactly where you aim.
In
Goat Hill budgets(sub 50k)
Though for whatever reason I putt better there than anywhere I play with greens running 6ish(at most) and 4-8 degree slopes
-
...
For those considering rolling back the driver in some way, what would you do with 3 woods which are still mostly small heads, lower COR, and shorter shafts but which most pros can still hit almost as far as their drivers.
i doubt very much that a significant number of pros are using 3 woods that are not at maximum COR.
Maxed out COR fairway woods have been around for quite some time now.
I built maxed out COR irons for a friend over five years ago.
-
Erik,
I've never said 20% so please don't accuse me of hurting my case by misquoting it. 10% is 30 yards and well enough at this stage. And the small ball was more than 5-6 yard longer. In the 1966 Open at Muirfield's 17th hole Jack allowed one club with an iron - so that's 10 yards to begin and it was more with a driver. And more again into the wind. And you didn't lose anywhere near as much if you mishit it.
The fact Champ himself has missed cuts doesn't avoid the question that his length will be the norm a generation from now. George Bayer missed plenty of cuts too but his length became the norm.
-
Those of you proposing a 20% roll-back… Do you realize how huge that is? Rory McIlroy is second on the PGA Tour for 2019 at 317.2 yards. He'd be hitting it less than 253.76 yards. 254 yards! That would have ranked 111th on the PGA Tour for driving distance in 1980.
Average driving distance is a fairly irrelevant statistic Erik, as it is only calculated over a couple of holes. Doesn’t mean much when there may be another 12 two or three shot holes where driver is used but not calculated. The real issue is that so many of them can regularly smash it 330-360 yards.
For me there is no issue playing a shorter ball, because in these conditions, the shorter ball doesn't affect the enjoyment of the game.
Unless the unholy trinity of kids, age and a desk job has unduly affected your game David, I'm not sure someone who can drive 275 metre par fours can pontificate over a shorter ball. I notice you aren’t advocating for a reduction in driver clubhead size, which would obviously affect you much more (and obviously involve RM buying more houses).
Mark,December will be a bit of a tipping point. When the President's Cup is played at RM people will see how much the game has changed. RM has no more land to push tee's back. Unless the ball is rolled back they will need to start buying land if they want to remain relevant.
Brian,There have always been long hitters though. Joseph Johnson's book on RM mentions an Argentinian player hitting a six-iron into 17 East, and driving the 3rd East green during the World Cup in 1972. It just happens more often these days. And 2 and 4 West were never designed to be true par fives.
Why don't RM just play them as par fours, as they have been in various tournaments over the years?Since I first played there more than 20 years ago, holes 2,6,11,12,13 & 18 have new back tees, and there are possibly more holes that do (14 & 16?). The new tees in 2 & 13 could not have been added should boundaries not have been extended. The course still plays quite short for elite amateur competition, much less Tour pro events.
Surely lengthening 2 and 13 just shows how misguided golf club committees are (even those like KH, which get it right more often than not). 2 and 13 are bog ordinary holes anyway, and lengthening them just makes the dreary journey along them more soporific. And whilst 12 is obviously a better hole, it was surely a short par five even in 1985?
Maybe the course plays short because a number of long holes run over a horizontal ridge, which is always going to advantage anyone that can carry it, whilst there are also a large number of short/medium par fours.If you had a course with ten par fours, and the four long ones were Foxy, Sea Hedrig, the Road hole and Carnoustie 17, would you not think that those long holes would always be a significant test?Yarra Yarra is hopelessly troubled by boundary issues.
YY has always been a short course though. It's boundary issues are more related to building a course on a small, irregularly shaped block in suburbia. And too many members.Royal Melbourne has been stretched significantly. East and West.
Which holes? 2 has been lengthened a little, 4 has gone back maybe 40 metres? 6 maybe 15? I know East 17 and 18 have been lengthened, but it’s surely no more than 20 metres in either case (unless they have recently changed). Hardly significant.
The Club purchased a property beyond the original course boundary, and in recent years has extended the 15th tee onto what was a neighbouring residential property as recently as 2015.
See above comment in regards as to golf club committees. Lengthening 15 West is just stupid.
Dr John Green’s residence was purchased, the old home demolished, and much of the block now serves as a safety buffer from errant long second shots into the second green in East.
You need to stop taking David down there then. He is the epitome of the long but wild hitter that gives poor Ian headaches.
Several clubs have incurred significant cost in erecting safety fences and nets on their periphery. God knows what insurance premiums Woodlands deal with, due to balls going onto White Street off holes 1 & 2. Same with Victoria on holes 2 & 3.
That is mostly due to the Ponzi scheme economics of both governments of this country in the preceding decades. Australia has more than doubled it's population in the last forty odd years.Mordialloc used to be a dreadful suburb. The only thing a ball flying over the fence on White street was likely to hit in days gone by was a painter and docker staggering home from the Rose and Crown. Now, it’s more likely than not to be a pampered princess wheeling little Mikaehleeahya in a $1500 pram.
Is the issue at Woodlands and Vic the balls going over the fence, more traffic or more rounds? Who is hitting them over the fence?
The issue might be more significant than you think. And that’s to say nothing of a loss of strategic intent.
I notice that, despite both your and Brian’s professed concern for restoring the original intent of the architect via a rollback, that even during a casual round you are still smashing driver on 2 West.
You blithely proselytize that slow speed swingers can move up a tee, yet you two could both hit a four wood to play more like the architect intended, but it would appear, even during a casual round, you both value shooting the lowest possible score more than your principles.
Polly Farmer died during the week. He was a 189 cm ruckman. Now you need to be 200cm.
Most of the great golfers in the 1970s were 175-180 cm. Now, most of them are six feet at least, with a substantial number between six -two and four. Just because holes have been lengthened doesn’t mean they should be. I don’t know if you have played the North or South courses yet, but 1,3,9,10 and 17 have been lengthened on North. It’s worthwhile on 3 and 17, dubious on 1, and unnecessary on 9 and 10.Similarly, South has had 1,4,5,6,9,10,11,14 and 18 with new tees. Do they all add to the course?
-
US Am at #2.
The entire field is regularly hitting forged blade 8 irons 180 - 190ish yards. Same as TOUR pros each week.
How do we know? It was stated repeatedly over the past several days and we see it announced every week on TOUR.
Drives are 300 to 350 yards down the middle most of the time because the ball doesn't curve much (per Adam Scott's quote today).
These kids are hitting 3 woods 300 yards. Small heads with maxed out COR and a hot ball + high swing speed.
How on earth can you argue that high swing speed top ams and pros are not benefiting drastically from the ball, and modern equipment, versus low swing speed amateurs.
I've watched hundreds of club fittings and the benefits for high swing speed players drastically outpace those of low swing speed players in terms of distance gains (on a yardage basis) and what we see on TV each weekend, or during AM tournaments, only supports it.
"Inaccurate" - Wrong. So clearly wrong.
300 to 350 yard drives and 190 yard 8 irons. Insane.
550 yard par 4s that are playing Driver and short iron.
It's a joke.
You can't make courses long enough for the best players in the world. And we all know that "classic" courses are becoming more and more irrelevant every year.
Bitching that the "rollback" people aren't aligned on EXACTLY how much distance should be reduced for high swing speed golfers - 10% or 20% or whatever - is a ridiculous statement. It's a starting point for a discussion that the ruling bodies need to have and by attempting to ignite that debate hopefully it will happen. Then data needs to be analyzed and an agreement on "appropriate distance" established.
Maybe bifurcation is the answer but as has been stated numerous times on this thread it's unlikely to work because Amateur golfers want to play the same equipment as Pro golfers.
Maybe that will change if 120 mph SS golfers are losing 30 yards and 90 mph SS golfers are losing 6 yards (or whatever), but unlikely.
-
Rather than 20%, make it 30% because the time anything happens they'll need to.
"these guys are good" but the guys in the white lab coats are better....and constantly in motion
65,63,61 can't wait for Sunday's new CR
-
I don't believe there is any viable way other than bifurcation, and if a "Tour" ball had similar performance characteristics of early 90's balata (minus the negatives of cutting and going out of round) it would have the desired limiting effect in the top ranks of players while having a tremendous appeal to just about every non tour player who has ever picked up a club. I think they would become so popular in such a short time that manufacturers would be overwhelmed with orders for them.
I'd be playing them tomorrow if they were available.
-
To those of you advocating a rollback--
Do you believe that factors other than equipment are at least partially responsible for the increased distance that the ball travels and scores are lower? How about better course maintenance? How about better conditioning of the players? How about the fact that better athletes are electing to play golf? Etc.?
Does any of that matter to your position? Maybe not.
But if it doesn't, do you not applaud better performance by modern athletes in other sports? Do you not think it is admirable that people can run faster? Jump higher?
I know there is not really an equipment element to most of these sports--maybe better poles in pole vault? But personally, I like it when modern athletes do better than their predecessors. So if there are some elements producing better golf performance besides equipment, shouldn't we applaud and admire that part?
-
Jim,
Do you think if Norman.Nicklaus and Snead (the 3 best drivers probably from 1950-1995) were playing now they would be driving it on average 280 or 315?
i think the answer is pretty clear.
If Rory or Johnson or Brooks were playing in say, 1970, do you think they would be 30 yards past Jack or driving it 280 as Jack and Arnold were at their peak?
It's obvious to me it's nearly all the result of the equipment.
Are they better athletes? Were they more (or less) skilful players is a better question.
Personally I think there is a decent argument to make that the modern equipment is, in fact, deskilling players because it's much easier to use.
Im not sure about the maintenance thing - because there are wild variations the world over. This isn't just an American problem. For example the ball runs much less at Royal Melbourne since they 1/ put in a watering system in the late 1980s and 2/ changed the fairway grass a decade ago.
And all we have seen this week at Medinah is soft greens - the most significant agronomic reason for the low scores.
I'm not sure what I'm watching in athletics now or indeed for the last 50 years. So much of the 'improvement' has been due to improved equipment - running tracks surfaces, swimming pools, starting blocks, better shoes and of course, drugs. All but one of the runners on the blocks for the 100m final in Seoul subsequently failed a drug test - including the winner a couple of days later.
See this study of Jesse Owens' times compared to Usain Bolt's and whilst the gap was far, when they evened the 'equipment' out it was barely much at all.
[size=78%] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0[/size]
Nor is the running track or the swimming pool or the high jump pit a piece of architecture in need to protection from the advance of technology.
-
A lot is being said about the distance players are hitting the ball but not much is being written about the ridiculous heights the modern pros hit it, compared to both amateurs and the pros of yesteryear.
The games would be far more interesting to watch if we rolled back the height the modern pros hit it. They would have less carry distance, more roll, and they would have to use a ball that spins more, and that will fly shorter and more offline on mishits.
-
I thought we were talking about height because that is what makes carrying the ball so far possible.
So far as I can tell, nobody had made a good argument for a 100% equipment rollback VS bifurcation. The effect on the vast majority of golfers VS the extremely small percentage of non-elite players does not strike me as a sound trade off worth pursuing. I have said it before, courses are already far too long for most golfers. Making courses longer for all seems foolish when a more targeted solution is readily available.
The real question is how far should the elite roll back be? To me it's a half ass measure if anything considerably under 20% is on the table. In architecture terms, this sort of rollback recreates something close to the situation that existed between good recreational golfers and elite players probably as early as the 1960s. The only downside I can see is archies will probably continue to build dull par 5s 😎
Ciao
-
Let's just say the game goes down the bifurcate route.
The Pro's have their own ball.
All Pro's?
Just the men we see on TV?
What about other lower level pro events, other tours, regional events etc?
And then there's the Seniors? Ladies? They can bomb it too, more so these days.
And what about the group of amateurs who bomb it 280-300-320 or thereabouts (or more in the future) in the air but also spray it left and right and over the fences? What ball are they required to use ..... and not just in formal comps but in casual play with lessor ability player partners as well?
Bifrication, a bit more complex than it initially appears?
Make things easy.
Pick a date a couple of years ahead and a rollback figure whether it be say 10%, 20% or a nice compromise at say 15% and go with that for all.
Manufacturers don't hold masses of stock ("just in time" and all that) so the rundown period shouldn't be that long.
The best players would be rolled-back, the lessor players, well they won't lose much coz to be blunt, they haven't got much to lose.
atb
atb
-
Sean - perhaps I've not stated it clearly enough. Let me try again. Maybe you dismiss my line of reasoning, or maybe I've not expressed it appropriately. We will see.
100% rollback aims to address many issues including safety / boundary problems at the amateur level, and is likely a more palatable form of regulatory review for manufacturers. It deals with the potential problems of next generation being longer than this one. In my mind - universal rollback is accompanied by a shortening of the course, likely leading to less inputs (chemicals, maintenance hours and most importantly water), likely lower cost and possibly faster rounds. I think it would be good for the entire scale of the game to shrink. It is simply too bloated, big and costly.
Bifurcation sees no impact upon long hitting amateur and recreational players, and the safety / liability issues they invite. The next generation will be bigger, stronger and longer, and will create a more pressing issue. Bifurcation may also be a less palatable approach to manufacturers, and importantly, is contrary to the wishes of the game's governing bodies who have expressly stated a wish to retain the one set of rules for all. Bifurcation divorces the pro game from the amateur game even further than it already is.
There have been sharp minds in the game suggesting that the flight of the ball should be limited, for a century. Expressing concern with distance. MacKenzie, Behr, Crump, Tillinghast, Flynn, Longhurst, Doak, Nicklaus, Player, Palmer, Crenshaw, Faldo, Woods, Clayton, Shackelford and many, many others. Heck - Chamblee is now on the same page. Are they all wrong? Who else would you like to echo those words? At what point do you think this cohort might have a valid suggestion? And to those who refute the need for a rollback - what makes you think you know better than these people?
Also - nice points on the perils of implementing bifurcated rules Thomas. That is a more complex path than universal rollback.
Matthew
-
To those of you advocating a rollback--
Do you believe that factors other than equipment are at least partially responsible for the increased distance that the ball travels and scores are lower? How about better course maintenance? How about better conditioning of the players? How about the fact that better athletes are electing to play golf? Etc.?
Does any of that matter to your position? Maybe not.
But if it doesn't, do you not applaud better performance by modern athletes in other sports? Do you not think it is admirable that people can run faster? Jump higher?
I know there is not really an equipment element to most of these sports--maybe better poles in pole vault? But personally, I like it when modern athletes do better than their predecessors. So if there are some elements producing better golf performance besides equipment, shouldn't we applaud and admire that part?
Jim - no question increased distance is the result of many factors. Trackman, better instruction, taller and stronger players, and other factors. Modern balls and clubs are the two largest, by some way. I don't think agronomy is much of a factor. Some fairways are soft and overwatered, and some are baked dry. Some are clipped short and weed free.
No intelligent person is suggesting it is the ball by itself. The fact that evolution dictates the next generation will be taller and stronger, heightens the urgency of regulatory reform in my mind, especially considering the greater availability of accurate and objective data during instruction (Trackman etc) and the spread of speed based instruction. In an increasingly litigious time, where resources are scarce, the situation will only end poorly for golf unless it responsibly manages itself.
I applaud great performances, and continually marvel at what the greatest athletes in the world do - in many, many sports. I will admit I am way more suspicious these days, of the effects of performance enhancing drugs.
There are no doubt some elements producing better golf performance besides equipment. Mental training, course management and putting to name just three. We can and should applaud and admire that. Let me ask this however - why are courses that host majors adding rough, lengthening holes, and adding trees? Why are we not simply marvelling at the greatness of modern players?
Do we value the method of play required over great architecture? The thought and skills demanded of the best courses? Do we wish to accurately compare the performances of the greats in one generation with those in another? I suspect many would answer in the affirmative to those questions. Which surely begs the question, why are we not addressing technological creep in equipment, and / or a lapse in regulatory diligence rather than markedly altering the courses? Because altering the courses is not a widely available, let alone sustainable, nor ideal option.
-
Let's just say the game goes down the bifurcate route.
The Pro's have their own ball.
All Pro's?
Just the men we see on TV?
What about other lower level pro events, other tours, regional events etc?
And then there's the Seniors? Ladies? They can bomb it too, more so these days.
And what about the group of amateurs who bomb it 280-300-320 or thereabouts (or more in the future) in the air but also spray it left and right and over the fences? What ball are they required to use ..... and not just in formal comps but in casual play with lessor ability player partners as well?
Bifrication, a bit more complex than it initially appears?
Make things easy.
Pick a date a couple of years ahead and a rollback figure whether it be say 10%, 20% or a nice compromise at say 15% and go with that for all.
Manufacturers don't hold masses of stock ("just in time" and all that) so the rundown period shouldn't be that long.
The best players would be rolled-back, the lessor players, well they won't lose much coz to be blunt, they haven't got much to lose.
atb
atb
Not at all. The ruling bodies can easily mandate that professionals and ams who play in their events must use specified equipment. It is very simple. I can readily imagine most if not all top flight am events following suit because of qualification ranking points for the Walker Cup etc and ego. The pro tours is a different matter, but that is the case with any such new equipment rule. If the ruling bodies can convince pro tours to significantly rollback then great. If not, march ahead. I am not one to think we all need to play the same rules and equipment because I know this is far from the case now.
Matthew
I think the concerns over safety etc in the main exist regardless if a guy can hit it 275 or 300. The main concerns are blind shots and nearby roads and homes. These have long been issues which in the main have been ignored. It's just that rollbackers have now decided they are critical issues which IMO is false.
Again, rollbackers need to find an argument, present it well and stick to it. Throwing all arguments against the wall and hoping they stick weakens their position. Identify the specific problem and find a solution which deals with that specific problem with little disruption to those who are not the problem. Rollbackers want to use a sledgehammer where a tack hammer will do.
Ciao
-
With regard to bifurcation, there'll be even more types of different ball for sale in pro-shops etc if we go down this line and a bunch of confusion too. Limited sales as well. Will manufacturers be interested in limited sales, unless they're at a very premium price point?
As to the arguments, some, such as those behind the Rollback Alliance, are attempting to enhance debate and put positions forward. Others though, seem to have closed ears.
Simple answers are usually the best answers.
atb
-
Atb
Folks disagreeing does not equate to closed ears.
I would simply ask what the real concern is. A long list of issues which a rollback is meant to cure does not ring true to me. The issues are far more complicated than simply stating a rollback solves all problems. We need specific answers to specific issues. It's time to get very serious and properly look at the issues and the impact of any potential solutions. It could well be that a rollback solves most or all the issues. I haven't looked into the issues deeply. Rollbackers have a way to go before their one size fits all solution convinces me, but my ears are not closed.
Ciao
-
To those of you advocating a rollback--
Do you believe that factors other than equipment are at least partially responsible for the increased distance that the ball travels and scores are lower? How about better course maintenance? How about better conditioning of the players? How about the fact that better athletes are electing to play golf? Etc.?
Does any of that matter to your position? Maybe not.
But if it doesn't, do you not applaud better performance by modern athletes in other sports? Do you not think it is admirable that people can run faster? Jump higher?
I know there is not really an equipment element to most of these sports--maybe better poles in pole vault? But personally, I like it when modern athletes do better than their predecessors. So if there are some elements producing better golf performance besides equipment, shouldn't we applaud and admire that part?
Some minor merit to this,(athletes do continue to improve every generation) but....
When most leading runners start running 15% farther in a 15 year perod, and 60 year old runners are running faster they they ever have in their life,
such a comparison will make sense
-
Atb
Folks disagreeing does not equate to closed ears.
I would simply ask what the real concern is. A long list of issues which a rollback is meant to cure does not ring true to me. The issues are far more complicated than simply stating a rollback solves all problems. We need specific answers to specific issues. It's time to get very serious and properly look at the issues and the impact of any potential solutions. It could well be that a rollback solves most or all the issues. I haven't looked into the issues deeply. Rollbackers have a way to go before their one size fits all solution convinces me, but my ears are not closed.
Ciao
We "rollbackers" clearly do not have all the right answers.
15 years ago it might've been Melvyn and I and one or two others on that side and the threads would be short.
Now the entire golf world is actually having this conversation-not just a couple of kooks on GCA.
Bringing attention to a "problem" (or a perceived one) does not mean one must have all the answers to be credible, and various ideas, suggestions or differeing opinions on how far to change does not "weaken" the argument, it encourages discussion and allows both sides to listen to each other.
Something our Government leaders could stand to do and perhaps find some middle ground on our own issues.
-
0k, what is the problem?
Ciao
-
I've never said 20% so please don't accuse me of hurting my case by misquoting it.
I didn't tag the 20% to you. If that was unclear, I apologize. Others have said 20%, and you've said (IIRC) that golf has already undergone a rollback as big as "25 yards." I believe that too is inaccurate, even for most better players with the driver, let alone the average player. I believe the earlier "small ball to standard ball" "rollback" is nowhere near the size of the one desired today by a few.
And the small ball was more than 5-6 yard longer.
Off an average player's 7-iron?
The fact Champ himself has missed cuts doesn't avoid the question that his length will be the norm a generation from now. George Bayer missed plenty of cuts too but his length became the norm.
You don't know that.
Average driving distance is a fairly irrelevant statistic Erik, as it is only calculated over a couple of holes. Doesn’t mean much when there may be another 12 two or three shot holes where driver is used but not calculated. The real issue is that so many of them can regularly smash it 330-360 yards.
So let's just make up stats, based on what you think happens…
Here you go: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.317.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.317.html) - all drives. Rory has 64 rounds and 690 measured drives. That's almost 11 per round. He's averaging 303 yards and ranks first. That would put him at 242.4 yards with a 20% rollback.
Again, ridiculous.
Furthermore, as I've said, I don't really care about the 0.001%. They're a minuscule part of "golf."
There have been sharp minds in the game suggesting that the flight of the ball should be limited, for a century. Expressing concern with distance. MacKenzie, Behr, Crump, Tillinghast, Flynn, Longhurst, Doak, Nicklaus, Player, Palmer, Crenshaw, Faldo, Woods, Clayton, Shackelford and many, many others. Heck - Chamblee is now on the same page. Are they all wrong?
You seem to be confusing facts with opinions. They can't be "wrong" because it's an opinion, not a fact.
And, are there no "sharp minds" on the opposite side of the debate? Or is it solely their agreement with your position what makes them "sharp"?
Also, the opinions of dead people pre-suppose they'd have not changed their minds.
I think the concerns over safety etc in the main exist regardless if a guy can hit it 275 or 300. The main concerns are blind shots and nearby roads and homes. These have long been issues which in the main have been ignored. It's just that rollbackers have now decided they are critical issues which IMO is false.
Again, rollbackers need to find an argument, present it well and stick to it. Throwing all arguments against the wall and hoping they stick weakens their position. Identify the specific problem and find a solution which deals with that specific problem with little disruption to those who are not the problem. Rollbackers want to use a sledgehammer where a tack hammer will do.
Folks disagreeing does not equate to closed ears.
Agree with almost all of that. Both of the quotes.
-
Erik, can you please name the three wisest minds who have consistently voiced an opinion against equipment rollback, and briefly detail the thrust of their opinion?
-
Erik,
No I don't know that - but it's been an indisputable pattern going back more than a century. Why would it stop now? Shouldn't we be learning from history?
And, did you ever play with a small ball?
It went noticeably further and we can argue whether it was 15 yards or 25 and the variation was often dependent on the wind- the small ball was at its 'best' into it.
Off an average players 7 iron? How many average players hit a 7i with any consistency? By definition they don't - or they wouldn't be average players. The average (15 handicap) player's variation with the current ball and a 7 iron might be 10 - 15 yards. That's true of the 15 handicappers I play with.
-
So let's just make up stats, based on what you think happens…
I don't know about you, Erik, but I tend to watch television with my eyes open. I find it makes my Foxtel subscription more of a value proposition.
Here you go: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.317.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.317.html) - all drives. Rory has 64 rounds and 690 measured drives. That's almost 11 per round. He's averaging 303 yards and ranks first. That would put him at 242.4 yards with a 20% rollback.
Again, ridiculous.
Using averages isn't much of an argument. If McIlroy is hitting a quarter of his drives 330 yards, then another quarter 270 due to using a hybrid or 3-wood, then he's averaging 300.
I pretty much agree with some of what you have said. Human evolution, sports science, club fitting and better coaching are responsible for some of the distance increase. The rollbackers are making a very poor fist of their position, despite the (long-winded) eloquence of Matthew's post on his webpage.
There are at least five different categories of golfer, and a universal rollback will have a minor effect on two of them, a reasonable effect on one, a detrimental effect on the ones wreaking the most havoc in clubland, and varying to annoying effects on the last and largest group.
-
In my mind - universal rollback is accompanied by a shortening of the course, likely leading to less inputs (chemicals, maintenance hours and most importantly water), likely lower cost and possibly faster rounds.
That is, at best, a nonsensical supposition.
-
In my mind - universal rollback is accompanied by a shortening of the course, likely leading to less inputs (chemicals, maintenance hours and most importantly water), likely lower cost and possibly faster rounds.
That is, at best, a nonsensical supposition.
What was China’s argument for plowing up all those courses. Ultimate rollback.
-
(https://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Fraser13bg.jpg)
-
(https://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Fraser13bg.jpg)
Where is or was this and does it look like a bad thing?
-
...I pretty much agree with some of what you have said. Human evolution, sports science, club fitting and better coaching are responsible for some of the distance increase. ...
Human evolution?
Either you chose the wrong word, or you have no understanding of the scale of "human evolution."
Sports science?
Are you talking about biomechanics? If so, can you site one proven example where tour pro(s) got longer by application of biomechanics?
By club fitting I assume you are referring to what has been called optimization where implements are chosen to gain the most distance by optimizing the ball spin produced. This has worked very well with the new ball. But, how well would it work if spin were returned to the ball in a rollback? For that matter, could these athletes everyone talks about be able to keep the ball in play well enough to compete at a high level with the ball spinning more?
Better coaching?
Tiger changed coaches so often because he got better coaching? Just because there are more coaches enabled by more money in the sport, doesn't mean there is better coaching. Which would you choose, modern day David Ledbetter, or old times Harvey Pennick? Modern day Sean Foley, or old times John Jacobs?
-
Garland,
Have you seen what is happening to NBA rookies? Science is building athletes bigger, faster and more fragile. No doubt the youth movement in golf is also being periodically touched.
-
(https://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Fraser13bg.jpg)
Where is or was this and does it look like a bad thing?
It’s Fraserburgh .... and imo it looks very acceptable.
Atb
-
Garland,
Have you seen what is happening to NBA rookies? Science is building athletes bigger, faster and more fragile. No doubt the youth movement in golf is also being periodically touched.
Garland,
John is basically right on this one. Read an article on ESPN a few weeks ago that goes into the details.
Long of the short? They're playing far far more basketball these days as they play year round without breaks. Its not science per se making them more fragile, just old fashioned over use at younger and younger ages..
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27125793/these-kids-ticking-bombs-threat-youth-basketball (https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27125793/these-kids-ticking-bombs-threat-youth-basketball)
-
Garland,
Have you seen what is happening to NBA rookies? Science is building athletes bigger, faster and more fragile. No doubt the youth movement in golf is also being periodically touched.
Garland,
John is basically right on this one. Read an article on ESPN a few weeks ago that goes into the details.
Long of the short? They're playing far far more basketball these days as they play year round without breaks. Its not science per se making them more fragile, just old fashioned over use at younger and younger ages..
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27125793/these-kids-ticking-bombs-threat-youth-basketball (https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27125793/these-kids-ticking-bombs-threat-youth-basketball)
And, as Michael Jordan has shown, none of those NBA rookies will ever be able to golf a ball at near the highest level.
;)
-
Garland,
Have you seen what is happening to NBA rookies? Science is building athletes bigger, faster and more fragile. No doubt the youth movement in golf is also being periodically touched.
Could you be more specific on what science will build better golfers playing a Titleist balata equivalent performing ball.
Or, am I feeling a significant breeze coming from Indiana? ;)
-
Golf Digest did an article on Francisco Molinari last winter describing the transition he went through that led to 20+ yards off the tee. It included a physical evaluation to start, then a plan to strengthen his body through strength & flexibility training and then swing technique development to match.
This is from a top 50 caliber player looking to become top 10...and he did.
20+ yards!
I suspect every current top 1,000 player has gone through some version of this with the singular goal of optimizing their swing for distance with enough accuracy to play. Few with the success, or at least immediate return FM realized.
-
Golf Digest did an article on Francisco Molinari last winter describing the transition he went through that led to 20+ yards off the tee. It included a physical evaluation to start, then a plan to strengthen his body through strength & flexibility training and then swing technique development to match.
This is from a top 50 caliber player looking to become top 10...and he did.
20+ yards!
I suspect every current top 1,000 player has gone through some version of this with the singular goal of optimizing their swing for distance with enough accuracy to play. Few with the success, or at least immediate return FM realized.
Jim,
You may have to post that article.
He's currently 147 in Driving Distance on tour this year at 288,...
Last year he averaged 301
In 2017 he averaged 291
https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html)
-
Golf Digest did an article on Francisco Molinari last winter describing the transition he went through that led to 20+ yards off the tee. It included a physical evaluation to start, then a plan to strengthen his body through strength & flexibility training and then swing technique development to match.
This is from a top 50 caliber player looking to become top 10...and he did.
20+ yards!
I suspect every current top 1,000 player has gone through some version of this with the singular goal of optimizing their swing for distance with enough accuracy to play. Few with the success, or at least immediate return FM realized.
So what! Even I could get Kalen 20+ yards with a little work. And, he wouldn't even have to give up his ancient Big Bertha. ;)
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/how-francesco-molinari-picked-up-20-yards-off-the-tee-and-still-hits-it-straight/amp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/how-francesco-molinari-picked-up-20-yards-off-the-tee-and-still-hits-it-straight/amp)
-
Thanks Jim,
That makes sense. He did it from 2015 to 2018
"When asked to explain how he has picked up 20 yards with the driver over the past three seasons on the PGA Tour—yet, still puts it on the fairway—Francesco Molinari says, “I took the brakes off.”
Although it would seem he's regressed quite a bit this year....
P.S. Garland the old Big Bertha is gone, i've got a TaylorMade now, but still suck! ;D
-
Human evolution?
Either you chose the wrong word, or you have no understanding of the scale of "human evolution."
I'm using it in both senses of the term, although one of them, yes, isn't strictly correct. Well done you.
Sports science?
Are you talking about biomechanics? If so, can you site one proven example where tour pro(s) got longer by application of biomechanics?
I am talking "sports science", since that is the term I used. It covers a lot of ground.
But, how well would it work if spin were returned to the ball in a rollback? For that matter, could these athletes everyone talks about be able to keep the ball in play well enough to compete at a high level with the ball spinning more?
Who knows. It's a hypothetical, much like Matthew's citation of the spinning ball.
Better coaching?Tiger changed coaches so often because he got better coaching?
No one - including you - knows why he changed coaches. injury may have something to do with it. Cost may be another.
Just because there are more coaches enabled by more money in the sport, doesn't mean there is better coaching. Which would you choose, modern day David Ledbetter, or old times Harvey Pennick? Modern day Sean Foley, or old times John Jacobs?
Leadbetter and Foley are too far away from me, and the thought of a seance scares me - and trying to find a reliable medium would take up time better spent practicing putting. But I would choose Steve Bann over Bruce Green any day.
-
Very interesting comments over the weekend from Medinah by Adam Scott, Tiger Woods and Brandt Snedeker regarding modern drivers and the deskilling effect which is now entrenched within the modern game. Perhaps the 460cc driver head size limit is in need of review in addition to the ball rollback.
-
Without a doubt, the ability to leverage launch monitors for both club fitting and swing instruction has benefited golfers looking to add distance.
Golf specific gym workouts, players dedicating themselves to stretching and flexibility training and some of the available swing speed tools have also helped golfers for sure.
Every TOUR pro must be / should be doing what Molinari did. And golfers will continue to get more efficient decade after decade.
I'd also agree that the average athlete is getting more efficient across sports. Many pro athletes from the 80s or 90s cannot believe how strong and fast the average modern athlete in their sport is.
The obvious disadvantage for golf is that equipment has changed drastically while it has either not changed (much) or is not as relevant to success in other sports.
I agree with Matthew - The comments this weekend from some of the most respected TOUR players in the world was a big deal.
The golf ball is a "no brainer" but the metalwood technology should also be looked at closely in terms of club head size and COR.
A high percentage of R&D and Engineering people who work for equipment manufacturers are legit "rocket scientists" or hold advanced degress and they are paid to innovate so they will, completely logically, push the limits of what the USGA considers "conforming" and it's a fuzzy line a lot of the time. If the rules are changed then the same game will start all over again as expected.
Maybe if enough influential TOUR players start to pushback then the TOUR Executives will actually engage the USGA and R&A to facilitate some thoughtful changes . . .
-
...I pretty much agree with some of what you have said. Human evolution, sports science, club fitting and better coaching are responsible for some of the distance increase. ...
Better coaching?
Tiger changed coaches so often because he got better coaching? Just because there are more coaches enabled by more money in the sport, doesn't mean there is better coaching. Which would you choose, modern day David Ledbetter, or old times Harvey Pennick? Modern day Sean Foley, or old times John Jacobs?
Well I'd put John Jacobs and Harvey Pennick down as two of the greatest teachers in history.
But I'd also say that right now there are more excellent teachers, and more simple, valid, and most importantly not harmful teaching ideas out there than at any time in my lifetime.
Literally hundreds(if not more) of teachers out there armed with solid experience, research and experience-compared to far fewer several decades before.
That's why you see success at the highest levels with many varied and unusual swings, rather than a method that only works for some and cripples the rest.
There's never been a better time to be a junior golfer and get solid instruction and good information.
But that doesn't mean there aren't still a lot of bad teachers out there (by sheer numbers)
-
So Jeff, how do you explain Bryson D? Result of simple, valid, and not harmful teaching?
How about Bubba W?
-
So Jeff, how do you explain Bryson D? Result of simple, valid, and not harmful teaching?
How about Bubba W?
Both talented, both went to the same charm school.
Bryson will be Bryson-not sure I'd blame or credit his action on a teacher.
Bubba came to it on his own-no formal lessons.
Who is to say either's action is harmful?-they are successful.
A teacher using one of them as an inflexible model for their students would be the one doing harm.
-
Very interesting comments over the weekend from Medinah by Adam Scott, Tiger Woods and Brandt Snedeker regarding modern drivers and the deskilling effect which is now entrenched within the modern game. Perhaps the 460cc driver head size limit is in need of review in addition to the ball rollback.
Matthew - I referenced Scott's comments on another thread, but yours had me wishing that we had 'shot tracer' technology back in the 70s and 80s. What fun it would've been to watch the sheer variety of driver ball flights when you had golfers -- winning golfers all -- as different as Norman, Pavin, Zoeller, Lietzke, Watson, Irwin, Faldo, Ballesteros, Calcavecchia, Trevino, Woosnam and Nicklaus. Scott is right to note the de-skilling effect of the modern driver-ball combination; but for a viewer what's equally bad is the homogenizing effect! Watching it over the weekend at Medinah, I started thinking that the shot-tracing machine was broken, or that they don't really have the technology at all -- they just keep putting up the same high, long, baby-fade 'tracer' over every single shot.
-
Has anyone thought of the legal implications of rollback?
What about the equipment manufacturers? Are they OK w/ some governing body telling them to tone down their R&D?
What about a well funded family who son/daughter has prepped for the game as its' defined now only to find out the new driver head size is now 320cc and the grooves are now changed.
Pandora's box is waiting.
-
How about a guy like me that just spent $5,000 on a screen so I don't defecate in the pool every time I hear the smack of a ball?
-
So Jeff, how do you explain Bryson D? Result of simple, valid, and not harmful teaching?
How about Bubba W?
Both talented, both went to the same charm school.
Bryson will be Bryson-not sure I'd blame or credit his action on a teacher.
Bubba came to it on his own-no formal lessons.
Who is to say either's action is harmful?-they are successful.
A teacher using one of them as an inflexible model for their students would be the one doing harm.
My understanding is that Bryson's technique is from The Golfing Machine, which many teachers consider harmful. However, it is my understanding that a few teachers teach from that book/method. I don't know if Bryson had such a teacher or did it on his own.
My experience in professional practice (not golf) is that there are a few great ones in a field, and the majority of the practitioners are very average. Perhaps an illustrative example is Warren Buffet, vs. the vast majority of financial advisors who's recommendations consistently lose to the index funds.
So there may be "more simple, valid, and most importantly not harmful teaching ideas" as you say, but their application or usage by instructors for the most part will be average.
I think Bubba is an indication of the primary way to success. Practice or work. It doesn't matter how good the instruction is if you don't do the work. Ledbetter has had success as a teacher, but it seems to me that his two most successful pupils had work ethics that surpassed others, and perhaps was the primary component to the success.
So perhaps you can see why I don't see teaching, athletic training, sports science, etc. as big factors in the increase in distance the ball is being propelled. The improvements in technology to me are the keys. Therefore, roll back the ball by adding spin and ball COR. Roll back club COR to the COR of persimmon. Reduce the size of drivers to perhaps half.
Let me be able to see where the ball flies to so that I can find it in a timely fashion, and complete my round sooner.
After all, I want an after breakfast round followed by an after lunch round, and completed by an after dinner round. ;)
-
How about a guy like me that just spent $5,000 on a screen so I don't defecate in the pool every time I hear the smack of a ball?
You should have bought a view property not on a golf course, and then drove your electric car to the course to play. ;)
-
Who makes the rules in golf?
How long have they presided over the laws of the game, including rules pertaining to balls and clubs?
Did equipment manufacturers know this before entering the market?
Are there precedents for sports governing bodies altering the position on equipment that at one time was considered compliant?
Maybe I’m naive but the R&A and the USGA have little to fear IMHO, and they must be allowed to continue to govern, without fear of paralysis from a company that profits from the game these organisations govern.
-
The ship sailed when the USGA, contrary to legal advice, settled with Karsten on the square grooves ruling. They feared being spent into oblivion in an extended legal battle so they rolled over. Now, due to TV contracts and other marketing efforts they have a war chest of well over 200 million but still lack the fortitude to take on the large manufacturers. The Tour certainly doesn't want to step up; its players receive large sums in endorsement money from the manufacturers who prefer the current system. There is too much money in minimal regulation to expect any substantial change. Candidly, that is why I have stayed out of this discussion. At the highest level, it seems clear to me that, notwithstanding better training, nutrition, coaching, club fitting etc., the drastic change in distance at the highest level of play has been substantially accelerated by equipment changes. At the highest level, it has made for a less interesting game and reduced the challenge posed by classic courses. It has also contributed to slow play as courses are lengthened, whether that is sensible or not. I officiate state level amateur tourneys and I see the impact at that level. But absent significant financial incentives I fear this is nothing more than a moderately interesting intellectual exercise.
-
So Jeff, how do you explain Bryson D? Result of simple, valid, and not harmful teaching?
How about Bubba W?
Both talented, both went to the same charm school.
Bryson will be Bryson-not sure I'd blame or credit his action on a teacher.
Bubba came to it on his own-no formal lessons.
Who is to say either's action is harmful?-they are successful.
A teacher using one of them as an inflexible model for their students would be the one doing harm.
So perhaps you can see why I don't see teaching, athletic training, sports science, etc. as big factors in the increase in distance the ball is being propelled. The improvements in technology to me are the keys. Therefore, roll back the ball by adding spin and ball COR. Roll back club COR to the COR of persimmon. Reduce the size of drivers to perhaps half.
Let me be able to see where the ball flies to so that I can find it in a timely fashion, and complete my round sooner.
After all, I want an after breakfast round followed by an after lunch round, and completed by an after dinner round. ;)
Agreed 100% about the equipment tech being the biggest jump.
And those other things contribute as well.
At the end of the day, no matter what it is, the scale of golf is out of whack and bifurcation/rollback is inevitable and needed.
But teaching has improved vastly-and it makes a huge difference when a 10 year old is not being told to keep his head down , drive his legs, and keep his left arm straight.
In fact telling a kid nothing is far better than any of that.
I've spent 40 years visiting and interviewing teachers, and there are FAR more good teachers today-it's not even close, as they have learned from all the greats before them-and the ability to use the internet has made all of that far easier.
Of course, with so many more total teachers out there, there are of course more bad teachers as well, but as a total number, far more good teachers than ever before, and far easier ways to reach and access them.
While you are correct that most teachers(or anyone else) are "average" by definition, that average can be much better than 30 years ago.
and it is.
I certainly hope the "average" doctor is better than he was 40 years ago.
and SL, your post is spot on
-
But teaching has improved vastly-and it makes a huge difference when a 10 year old is not being told to keep his head down , drive his legs, and keep his left arm straight.
In fact telling a kid nothing is far better than any of that.
I've spent 40 years visiting and interviewing teachers, and there are FAR more good teachers today-it's not even close, as they have learned from all the greats before them-and the ability to use the internet has made all of that far easier.
Of course, with so many more total teachers out there, there are of course more bad teachers as well, but as a total number, far more good teachers than ever before, and far easier ways to reach and access them.
The quality and amount of resources on the internet for improving one's game is really quite ridiculous.
-
Little League baseball has introduced "deader" bats:
https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats (https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats)
-
Little League baseball has introduced "deader" bats:
https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats (https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats)
evidently 12 year olds have less need to cling to their youth than 50 year old men....
-
From Alan Shipnuk's mailbag @ Golf Mag:
I am really ready for a golf ball rollback. Do you think it’ll happen?
I’m more optimistic than I used to be. We’ve clearly reached an inflection point, if not a tipping point. There are many factors that have led to the distance explosion but a bifurcated ball is the cleanest, fastest solution. However, the entire multi-billion dollar equipment industry which powers every level of the game is built on FOMO — we all want the latest greatest equipment so we can try to hit the ball like the pros. But it’s not so much fun to watch Matt Wolff drive it 275 yards… I can do that myself right now. The stewards of the game have failed so spectacularly in that the current situation is unsustainable but there is no easy solution.
-
There is a April 2004 interview herein with Ralph Livingston about equipment over the ages - see - http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/feature-interview-with-ralph-livingston/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/feature-interview-with-ralph-livingston/)
With regard to the performance of the golf ball, question 2 is particularly worth reading (actually the whole interview is worth reading) as it contains various quotes from Jones/Keeler and other notables of the time regarding the performance of the ball and counteracting it's ever-increasing performance.
atb
-
From Alan Shipnuk's mailbag @ Golf Mag:
But it’s not so much fun to watch Matt Wolff drive it 275 yards… I can do that myself right now. The stewards of the game have failed so spectacularly in that the current situation is unsustainable but there is no easy solution.
Most of the above post is pretty good, but then.......utter balderdash
out of sight is out of sight
if someone's entire interest in spectating golf is predicated on some machine telling them a ball went 275(or 350) yards, then the end truly is near.
It was PLENTY of fun to watch Norman and Nicklaus hit it 280-300 no one could tell the difference with the naked eye.
-
Little League has safety motivation
-
I wonder what percentage of the world’s golf courses have a safety issue with a boundary.
And what percentage of the world’s courses have faced rising insurance premiums due to boundary issues. Or made changes to the course as a response to same.
-
I know I am in favor of limiting ball distance and increasing spin as well as doing something about the driver. I am more torn on bifurcation, but it actually might be the case that more fans would watch golf if they could say that they could hit it almost as far as the pros. A weird consequence of bifurcation, but maybe a reason to try it.
Ira
-
If I could choose one constraint it would be the volume of the clubhead. I'd limit it to what a typical persimmon driver head was in the mid 80s.
In my opinion, the main problem with today's drivers is that they are brainless to hit for good players. Pros used to have to worry about missing the sweet spot off the tee. But now it is incredibly rare.
-
From Alan Shipnuk's mailbag @ Golf Mag:
But it’s not so much fun to watch Matt Wolff drive it 275 yards… I can do that myself right now. The stewards of the game have failed so spectacularly in that the current situation is unsustainable but there is no easy solution.
Most of the above post is pretty good, but then.......utter balderdash
out of sight is out of sight
if someone's entire interest in spectating golf is predicated on some machine telling them a ball went 275(or 350) yards, then the end truly is near.
It was PLENTY of fun to watch Norman and Nicklaus hit it 280-300 no one could tell the difference with the naked eye.
Here's the solution to the naked eye deficiency issue. Line the fairways with black mining slag waste areas like at The Works in Anaconda, Montana. That way you can see and celebrate a ball 350 yards off the tee about half the time. If it ends up in the fairway, well good luck with seeing that.
-
If I could choose one constraint it would be the volume of the clubhead. I'd limit it to what a typical persimmon driver head was in the mid 80s.
In my opinion, the main problem with today's drivers is that they are brainless to hit for good players. Pros used to have to worry about missing the sweet spot off the tee. But now it is incredibly rare.
Totally agree with you Peter on the driver, but high swing speed players being able to hit forged blade 7 irons 200 yards just illustrates how much the golf ball has progressed (and these aren't "jacked loft" GI or SGI irons with various "speed" technologies).
Unfortunately, the solution would need to be ball and metalwood for any realistic "rollback" to be successful.
-
Here's a possible rollback for the driver:
https://newsroom.taylormadegolf.com/en-CA/172515-celebrating-company-s-40th-anniversary-taylormade-golf-company-introduces-original-one-mini-driver (https://newsroom.taylormadegolf.com/en-CA/172515-celebrating-company-s-40th-anniversary-taylormade-golf-company-introduces-original-one-mini-driver)[/font][/size][/size][/size][/size]I'm still in favor of Bifurcation for the 1%.
-
Totally agree with you Peter on the driver, but high swing speed players being able to hit forged blade 7 irons 200 yards just illustrates how much the golf ball has progressed (and these aren't "jacked loft" GI or SGI irons with various "speed" technologies).
Give that same guy a Pinnacle from 1998 and he'd hit it pretty far, too. The current ball already fits the "rolled back" ball requirements/limits/rules. They just figured out how to give the good players the control they got from balata with the distance they could have gotten from a Pinnacle.
So, "rollback" is likely the wrong term, because they'd just slap urethane covers on Pinnacles. There's no point you could "roll back" to where a Pro V1 wouldn't conform, basically. You would actually need entirely new rules. A "rollback" wouldn't cut it.
-
Totally agree with you Peter on the driver, but high swing speed players being able to hit forged blade 7 irons 200 yards just illustrates how much the golf ball has progressed (and these aren't "jacked loft" GI or SGI irons with various "speed" technologies).
Give that same guy a Pinnacle from 1998 and he'd hit it pretty far, too. The current ball already fits the "rolled back" ball requirements/limits/rules.
WHAT???? What "rolled back" rules are you taking about? There has been no rules so cause a roll back of distance. There has only been rules that stuck to stop the balls and implements from causing the balls to go farther then they were at the time the rule was implemented. The only roll back in the rules was to prevent the Polara ball from being legal after it came out.
They just figured out how to give the good players the control they got from balata with the distance they could have gotten from a Pinnacle.
So, "rollback" is likely the wrong term, because they'd just slap urethane covers on Pinnacles. There's no point you could "roll back" to where a Pro V1 wouldn't conform, basically.
You would actually need entirely new rules. A "rollback" wouldn't cut it. How is it that you haven't understood that this whole topic has been about creating "entirely new rules" that would require the manufacturers to produce balls (and clubs) with less performance.
-
Little League baseball has introduced "deader" bats:
https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats (https://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2019/8/20/little-league-putting-an-end-to-launch-angle-chase-with-new-deader-bats)
evidently 12 year olds have less need to cling to their youth than 50 year old men....
I spose if the best players exert the influence most seem to claim, maybe they should be the first to lay down their weapons 😎
Ciao
-
Not to extend/resurrect this discussion, but I note—without conclusion—the announcement yesterday that measured drives on all tours—except the LPGA—were lower this year. No reasons given. A few fewer drivers hit on the measured holes, but close. Swing speed was up, which I guess is more related to athleticism than to equipment.
The only conclusion I might suggest is the need to bifurcate the Ladies.
-
Jim,
The problem is the horse bolted 15 years ago. The next quantum leap will be when today's 14 years olds get out there.
Related to the climate change debate - the weather isn't the climate.
-
WHAT? ??? What "rolled back" rules are you taking about? There has been no rules so cause a roll back of distance. There has only been rules that stuck to stop the balls and implements from causing the balls to go farther then they were at the time the rule was implemented. The only roll back in the rules was to prevent the Polara ball from being legal after it came out.
I'm simply pointing out that the ODS hasn't really changed in decades. A Pro V1 conforms to the 1990 standard. So, it's not about rolling back the rules/regulations/limitations, but actually rolling back the technology (making a Pinnacle that can spin - the Pinnacle part being the solid core for distance with the driver, the "spin" part being the urethane cover for spin/control off short irons).
How is it that you haven't understood that this whole topic has been about creating "entirely new rules" that would require the manufacturers to produce balls (and clubs) with less performance.
I understand it perfectly well, Garland… the fact is that it's not a "rollback" so much as it is a completely new implementation. Those who favor whatever this is would do well to choose a better title.
The problem is the horse bolted 15 years ago. The next quantum leap will be when today's 14 years olds get out there.
You keep saying things like this, but your only real "proof" is the past, and you yourself acknowledge that people aren't going to continue to run much faster, or swim much faster, etc.
It's fear mongering of a sort (keeping in mind that we're talking about a silly game we all enjoy far too much). FUD.
-
Worth watching - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e050tXKQDT0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e050tXKQDT0)
It would be nice to hear from say an experienced just retired golf ball tech (who hasn't signed a confidentiality agreement!!!!!!) at one of the big manufacturers just what the manufacturers have got in the experimental/prototype/not for release cupboard.
I strongly suspect they all have a series of roll-back balls of various sorts sitting there. And their commercial depts will have run loads of economic models detailing cost/revenue/atoi scenarios for introduction.
As to the potential legal situation, any lawyers on here care to opine on restraint of trade vrs health & safety (or other aspects) in relation to an overall rollback?
atb
-
A couple of years ago I played with a former patent lawyer for Taylor Made and asked him about my R7 driver. FWIW he said the technology was still current.
Niall
-
FWIW just caddied LPGA pro-am. Szokol was hitting out of sight and blowing it over bunkers that used to be in play.
-
WHAT? ??? What "rolled back" rules are you taking about? There has been no rules so cause a roll back of distance. There has only been rules that stuck to stop the balls and implements from causing the balls to go farther then they were at the time the rule was implemented. The only roll back in the rules was to prevent the Polara ball from being legal after it came out.
I'm simply pointing out that the ODS hasn't really changed in decades. A Pro V1 conforms to the 1990 standard. So, it's not about rolling back the rules/regulations/limitations, but actually rolling back the technology (making a Pinnacle that can spin - the Pinnacle part being the solid core for distance with the driver, the "spin" part being the urethane cover for spin/control off short irons).
How is it that you haven't understood that this whole topic has been about creating "entirely new rules" that would require the manufacturers to produce balls (and clubs) with less performance.
I understand it perfectly well, Garland… the fact is that it's not a "rollback" so much as it is a completely new implementation. Those who favor whatever this is would do well to choose a better title.
The problem is the horse bolted 15 years ago. The next quantum leap will be when today's 14 years olds get out there.
You keep saying things like this, but your only real "proof" is the past, and you yourself acknowledge that people aren't going to continue to run much faster, or swim much faster, etc.
It's fear mongering of a sort (keeping in mind that we're talking about a silly game we all enjoy far too much). FUD.
You ain’t Mike Clayton. Or Jeff Warne. Or anybody else that you constantly attempt to denigrate.
Go back to The Sandbox. FUD.
-
Hello shadow. Thanks for the contribution once again.
-
Hello shadow. Thanks for the contribution once again.
The next positive vibe you add to this site may well be your first. Just like the shade you cast on Shackelford. Maybe it’s tough to disagree without being disagreeable in Erie PA, because that’s your online Modus operandi.
-
Whilst some may be others may not be aware that the ball they’re purchasing from the pro shop or wherever isn’t the exact same model as the one the folks we see on TV play -
https://www.rollbackalliance.org/arent-we-already-bifurcated/ (https://www.rollbackalliance.org/arent-we-already-bifurcated/)
Atb
-
Whilst some may be others may not be aware that the ball they’re purchasing from the pro shop or wherever isn’t the exact same model as the one the folks we see on TV play -
https://www.rollbackalliance.org/arent-we-already-bifurcated/ (https://www.rollbackalliance.org/arent-we-already-bifurcated/)
It's not like the ball some pros play are all that different. It might spin 100 RPM more, or less, or be a tiny bit different in some way. Lots of guys will simply play a 2015 model of a ball that's not "still" available at retail - but which once was. IOW, they basically play the same stuff, and their stuff must meet the same rules and regulations.
Statements like these imply that pros are getting some "secret, great, performance boosting" equipment that the average amateur can't ever get. Comparing a retail Mustang to one built and tuned for the Daytona 500 is silly and undermines the pro-rollback position. The improvements made to a Mustang are several orders of magnitude larger than the difference between a retail Pro V1x and a tour-only Pro V1* or a Pro V1z or whatever a few pros might play by special request.
Ditto anything else - amateurs can find and play the same equipment. You can hot melt your clubs like the pros do. You can order the same shafts. You can precisely measure the loft of your driver, so you know whether your 9.5 stamped driver is actually 9.22. Etc. You'll pay a pretty penny sometimes to do it, sure. But you can do it.
In answer to the question, NO, we're not already bifurcated. The rules and regulations for equipment are the same, save the grooves (and every wedge made after, what, 2010 conforms whether you're an amateur or pro there, so it's not like there's a ton of old illegal-for-high-level-comps wedges out there being played by 12 handicappers).
-
In answer to the question, NO, we're not already bifurcated.
How silly. Of course there is bifurcation. Matthew's quasi religious fervor over this issue is just clouding his judgement, that's all.
-
Dai,
Here's an article that provides more detail on these balls. Basically they're tweaking the spin and launch for the fastidious and fine tuned tour pros. Apparently you will be able to special order them.
https://mygolfspy.com/titleist-prov1x-left-dash-golf-ball/ (https://mygolfspy.com/titleist-prov1x-left-dash-golf-ball/)
-
Placebo - if they were all blank not a player in the world would be able to tell the difference.
I'm not sure that's exactly right - Tiger might - but not too many more.
-
Thanks for the link Bryan. Demand and price and ego time!
As Mike intimates, players, even exceptionally good ones, couldn't tell the difference if balls were blank and when you take matters to the lower skill levels of the game, the area inhabited by the majority, well players aren't good enough for full shot ball spec to make a difference anyway. A 'top' or a 'fat' is still a 'top' or a 'fat' irrespective of whether the ball's a brand new ProV1 or a 5 year old Rock Flight that the player found in a bush. And let's remember that a huge proportion of shots played are putts and does ball spec isn't much of an influence on putting.
And to generalise, as I've said before ""... is there going to be any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a 80% ball on an 80% length course? Same number of shots I suggest."
atb
-
Placebo - if they were all blank not a player in the world would be able to tell the difference.
More true than almost all will probably give you credit for Mike.
When TaylorMade first came out with their golf balls (TP Red, TP Black anyway), they brought Sergio Garcia over from Titleist. He'd played Titleist balls his whole life, basically, and kept imploring Dean Snell to make the ball (TP Black I think) more like his Pro V1x.
After months of work, Sergio was back at the testing facility and Dean gave Sergio a bunch of balls to hit. Sergio hit a number of the "Titleist Pro V1x" balls and remarked after a bunch "see there Dean, that's the ball flight I want. I want it just like that." Dean smiled and Sergio hit a few more, paused, and repeated the same thing about his ball flight and so on. He switched to a driver and the same thing happened. Hit some short game shots… same thing.
Finally, Dean laughed and said "Sergio, those are the TaylorMade balls you're so in love with. We stamped Titleist Pro V1x on them for you, but those are our balls you're loving right now."
(BTW, apparently Sergio didn't notice the different dimple pattern, but I digress…)
And to generalise, as I've said before ""... is there going to be any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a 80% ball on an 80% length course? Same number of shots I suggest."
Yes, because of scale. An 8-iron from 155 will still go further offline than an 8-iron from 124, and yet the hole will still be the same size, balls likely won't climb as high in the air and thus may not have the same landing angle as we have now, etc.
There's a whole lot to consider there that you're seemingly glossing over in your assumption (?) that the scoring would be the same.
And, as noted before, 20% is HUGE. A 20% distance roll-back would have Rory McIlroy outside the top 100 in driving distance in 1980. 135th, actually.
-
"And, as noted before, 20% is HUGE. A 20% distance roll-back would have Rory McIlroy outside the top 100 in driving distance in 1980. 135th, actually."
But probably still first in 1960, thou once again, you miss the point....Its all relative. If Rory was the only one being rolled back that would suck.....but it applies to all!
-
But probably still first in 1960, thou once again, you miss the point....Its all relative. If Rory was the only one being rolled back that would suck.....but it applies to all!
Of course it's all relative, but you're missing my point: 20% takes the guy driving it 310 yards back to < 248. Goodness, Bobby Jones hit it farther. Francis Ouimet probably didn't, though.
Who wants to see that? Maybe a few, but nowhere near enough people. At 20%, you'd have to redesign nearly every golf course in the world to build several new tees in front of the existing tees. Green-to-tee walks would get longer as people had to walk forward to get to the tees.
20% is nuts. Especially when nowhere near the majority of the distance gains since 1980 (or "pick-your-year") were from the ball.
-
Erik,
Surely you jest right? You do realize that most golfers can't even hit it 250 off the tee today, even with modern equipment. But somehow we've still managed to find tee boxes for those folks. Worse case scenario you have pros playing the members tees on a couple of long holes at a tour venue...
But wouldn't it be great to see pros having to actually figure out a 450 yard par 4 again, instead of driver/wedge, wash, rinse, repeat...
-
Erik makes the same canned responses here and the NLU discussion board. It really is pointless in trying to engage him in any discussion.
-
Rollback isn't just about golf, there's a much bigger picture than that. It's land use, water allocations and a whole bunch of other related factors as well.
Bobby Jones and Francis Ouimet were mentioned above. Well when they were playing the world population was circa 2 billion, it's now circa 7.5 billion all of whom want access to food and water. And 99.99999999% of them don't give a damn about golf.
If golf doesn't take the bull by the horns and deal with the distance and related issues itself then outside factors and outside agencies will come more and more to the fore and they'll do what they want to do not what is necessarily best for golf.
And folks can debate and analyse and procrastinate about the detail of ball specs and swings speeds and all that good stuff and how it effects different categories of player all they wish but does the tiniest smidgen of such detail really matter when the quality of players swings is such that even the elite can only make proper club-on-ball contact on very rare occasions and even then other variables outwith their control like wind, firmness of ground, even a few blades of grass can influence the outcome.
atb
-
Surely you jest right? You do realize that most golfers can't even hit it 250 off the tee today, even with modern equipment.
No, not at all. And I know most golfers don't hit it 250.
My point was that 20% is huge. If the ball is rolled back 20%, Rory's gonna hit it 250 and the average golfer's 200-yard drives are going to go 160. That's nuts, IMO.
But somehow we've still managed to find tee boxes for those folks.
20% is huge, though… I'm aware that you can do the math, but for my own sake: I've said that "6500 yards is enough for 95% of the world's golfers." I believe it, and I've rarely gotten any push-back from anyone on it. So, with a 20% roll-back, 6500 yards becomes 5200. How many courses even have tees at 5200? Maybe all of them, but remember then: these are the new BACK tees, and everything else will have to be short of them. The existing 6000 yard tees would have to move to 4800, the 5600 yard tees would move to 4480, and the 5200-yard tees that may or may not exist now would have to be moved up to about 4160.
That's a lot of new construction, forced on every golf course that doesn't have tees at about 3600 yards and out (3600 being the current equivalent of 4500), if the ball is rolled back.
But wouldn't it be great to see pros having to actually figure out a 450 yard par 4 again, instead of driver/wedge, wash, rinse, repeat...
But again… I don't care about the pros. They're a tiny portion of the game, and they play on courses that choose to have them, with boards and owners and whatnot that choose to add the tees they need or whatever. I don't care that the winning score at the U.S. Open was -13 (on a course that was about 7000 yards).
BTW, a 450-yard hole is the modern equivalent of a 563-yard hole. That's a helluva par four. 20% is a lot.
Erik makes the same canned responses here and the NLU discussion board. It really is pointless in trying to engage him in any discussion.
They're not "canned responses" - they're my opinion. Should my opinion change from site to site? I disagree with many of you (here, I'm in a clear minority, which is fine by me) that there's a "distance problem" in need of radical solutions like "20% reduction!" Do your opinions differ depending on the site you're on?
I absolutely recognize that it's not anyone's job to do so, but still, nobody's convinced me yet that there's a problem, and I think some here can get so wrapped up in talking with like-minded people who agree with you that you don't get as much outside perspective as may be beneficial. Trust me, I'm not aggrandizing myself there in speaking for the "outside perspective" - I only offer MY perspective. But how often do you ask yourselves "gee, how big is a 20% rollback, really? Where would that put us in golf's timeline, and what would 99.9% of the world's golfing population think if they suddenly hit their driver as far as they used to hit their 5-hybrid"?
If you don't want to respond, Hoover, by all means, please don't. If "Ignore" actually worked here at GCA, I'd suggest that. I'm just posting my opinion, my thoughts.
FWIW, MattM has talked with me on the NLU site that "nobody's saying 20%" (paraphrased; I doubt he literally said "nobody") and yet, here we are, talking about 20%.
20% is nuts.
Rollback isn't just about golf, there's a much bigger picture than that. It's land use, water allocations and a whole bunch of other related factors as well.
I would understand that position if we were standing on the precipice of something massive change, but I don't think we are. Imagine a 20% roll-back. Imagine that the back tees are never used again, and all those new forward tees from 3600 yards and out are built. It's not like those little plots of land where the back tees used to be are going to be returned to the general pool of "free land."
You're still watering 18 greens. You're still watering 18 fairways (or 14, or whatever). You're still watering the same number of tee boxes. How much water is there to be saved by keeping the same plot of land, but taking some tee boxes and moving them in front of the others?
If golf doesn't take the bull by the horns and deal with the distance and related issues itself then outside factors and outside agencies will come more and more to the fore and they'll do what they want to do not what is necessarily best for golf.
I'm not convinced at all, but if I were playing devil's advocate to myself, this would likely be the best avenue. IMO the "pro-rollback" fellas would be well advised to do a few things, including picking a single message (or two) and sticking to it. As it stands now, some people are on the "the PGA Tour is boring" or "the Old Course will be obsolete soon for the British Open (or already is), and oh what a loss that will be/is". Some are talking about how much more dangerous golf is. Some are talking about the "skill" required. You're all over the place, and it muddies the message.
I imagine people don't want to keep paying more and more for golf (within reason), nor do I imagine golfers want politicians stepping in and closing down popular golf courses, or historic golf courses, simply because they've fallen out of political/environmental/etc. fashion.
-
You make an important point Erik, in that a clear message stands more chance of being understood.
There are many reasons favouring a rollback - environmental, skill-based, financial, legal / safety, and temporal to name a few. Expressing all of those can confuse some people.
-
An excellent recent piece from the Rollback Alliance, well worth reading - https://www.rollbackalliance.org/dont-let-the-grass-grow-beneath-your-feet/ (https://www.rollbackalliance.org/dont-let-the-grass-grow-beneath-your-feet/)
:)
atb
-
Came across this video.
Something tells me that the manufacturers have likely already made a big, big bunch of ‘prototype’ balls of different sorts that’ll go varying distances and perform in different ways and have them all stored in a big, locked cupboard -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j66SJgDt7Gg (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j66SJgDt7Gg)
Atb
-
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
https://www.golf.org.au/clayton-time-we-made-a-call/ (https://www.golf.org.au/clayton-time-we-made-a-call/)
-
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
https://www.golf.org.au/clayton-time-we-made-a-call/ (https://www.golf.org.au/clayton-time-we-made-a-call/)
+1
What a great piece.
Love the hide & seek, snakes & ladders etc references! :):)
atb
-
Enjoyed the article Matthew.
On Monday, I played in the USGA 4-Ball Qualifier. It rained a lot prior to the round and the course was already soft. So, there was absolutely no roll that day.
I'm 46 and my partner is 51. We have nearly identical games. We both typically carry our tee shots in the 250-265 yard range. My 5 iron goes 190 yards and his 180 yards (probably just a difference in loft).
We were paired with two high school seniors. Both were good players, but both were struggling to get any attention from division 1 programs. They routinely outdrove us by 30-50 yards. I think one of them flew his 2 iron past my driver.
Other than driving distance (and 2 clubs less per iron shot), our games were very similar. And, the only reason that I could find for the different distance was growing up in different eras. I grew up in an era where speed was not the single most important factor in golf. No one went all out, all the time. These two kids grew up in an era where everything, and most importantly the club and ball technology, says to go all out all the time.
These kids were not better athletes than me. In fact, I'm pretty sure they only played golf. I played every sport except American football. I played club/select soccer for years and very likely could have earner a college scholarship if I hadn't decided to focus on golf. My buddy grew up in South Africa playing rugby, cricket, etc. in addition to golf.
On the one hand, I don't care what happens at the pro level. Just eliminate the concept of a par 5 (there are basically no three shot holes for tour pros) and all the under par scores go up by 12-16 shots per tournament. The problem is there are thousands of younger players hitting the ball miles. Even in my recent club championship, which I won, I was outdriven in my last two matches by an average of 30 yards by two under 20 year old players.
There is a just a massive difference in distance based on what era you grew up in. It wouldn't be a problem if courses could easily be made longer and longer. But, that just isn't the case. Many courses that were built away from more urban areas are now in urban areas and are land locked (my club is a perfect example). Additional land is expensive. The maintenance of longer courses is cost prohibitive. Longer courses take longer to play. And, I don't remember having to be so worried about balls flying at me from others holes as I do today on older, more compact courses.
And, there's a reason many of my millenial friends have extra sets of clubs of wooden drivers and forged blades. They love playing the game with them.
-
Well said Steve. Your last point is interesting. It is telling that so many millennials now enjoy playing with blades and woods from the 60s and 70s.
Maybe they have figured out that game they can play (bombs away) is not the game they most enjoy playing.
Bob
-
As a millennial who plays the majority of the their rounds with Hickories. I'd say that the number of millennials who use vintage equipment on a regular basis is very, very small.
The majority of millennial players still rely on technology to help them play competently or are still compelled to hit the ball as far as possible. They have little interest in looking towards the past and making the game "harder" even if it might also be more enjoyable.
I remember a story about when Davis Love III was growing up his grandfather told him to focus on hitting the ball as hard as he can and then learn how to control it. This was the advice he received as a young boy in the 70's using persimmon headed woods. It's no wonder when he got to the tour he was the longest player out there. Now everyone is taught to play that way, with much more forgiving equipment.
-
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
"no one will convince me modern players are superior athletes to Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros."
That says a lot right there.
-
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
"no one will convince me modern players are superior athletes to Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros."
That says a lot right there.
What’s their “Fran” time?
-
Another dose of common sense here from Clayts -
"no one will convince me modern players are superior athletes to Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros."
That says a lot right there.
Are modern players more skilled than Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros? Based on the equipment and ball they were using then vs today I would say not even close.
-
Are modern players more skilled than Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros? Based on the equipment and ball they were using then vs today I would say not even close.
Coming from you, that's not surprising in the least.
But, yeah, you're probably right: golf is the only sport in existence that's grown, but somehow has produced worse athletes.
-
Are modern players more skilled than Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros? Based on the equipment and ball they were using then vs today I would say not even close.
Coming from you, that's not surprising in the least.
But, yeah, you're probably right: golf is the only sport in existence that's grown, but somehow has produced worse athletes.
Those sorts of comparisons are difficult to make. This link is an effort to compare Jessie Owen's PB of 10.2 seconds to Usain Bolt's best time which was 9.5 something. The entire difference might be explained by the track, the shoes and the starting block. The live experiment they did involved one participant and compared his personal best v. his time in a "rollback" 100 meter dash. It by no means the end of the matter. https://everything-everywhere.com/jesse-owens-vs-usain-bolt-who-would-win/
-
Are modern players more skilled than Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros? Based on the equipment and ball they were using then vs today I would say not even close.
Coming from you, that's not surprising in the least.
But, yeah, you're probably right: golf is the only sport in existence that's grown, but somehow has produced worse athletes.
I never said anything about better athletes. I said they were more skilled IMO. Coming from you I just expect fabrication.
-
I never said anything about better athletes. I said they were more skilled IMO. Coming from you I just expect fabrication.
I quoted Clayton's sentence about "athletes" and you're the one who injected the word "skilled."
But, to play along, yes, they are more skilled, because they have to be, or they wouldn't last on the PGA Tour. Jack said it in 1996: the average player of today would have been a star in his day.
-
But, yeah, you're probably right: golf is the only sport in existence that's grown, but somehow has produced worse athletes.
Professional golfers are obviously more athletic today than in the past, but I'm not sure about more skilled. They aren't used to having to hit their drives in the center of a small clubface. Indeed, that is one of the arguments for addressing distance by adjusting the ball, and not just making them go back to persimmon . . . that going back to persimmon would be unfair to a generation that never had to learn the skill of hitting it "on the screws".
Of course, that argument may be disingenuous, as we all know Callaway and other companies would fight until their last breath against a new rule that mandated persimmon heads over their high-tech $500 drivers. But you can't take BOTH sides in that debate.
-
Those sorts of comparisons are difficult to make.
If you're talking about singular people, sure. They can be. French Lick, IN is unlikely to have produced one of the best basketball players of all time, but it did.
It's just a numbers game: Tom Weiskopf was a good athlete and a good golfer. But there might be 20 or 30 Tom Weiskopfs out there now. In a class of ten kids it's pretty easy to be the top athlete or scholar or pianist or speller or scientist. If that top kid moves to a class of 500, there's a good chance he'd be top 50, but top one? It'd be significantly harder. It could still happen, but it's not likely.
Professional golfers are obviously more athletic today than in the past, but I'm not sure about more skilled.
That's because you're all defining "skill" in a way that suits you. Players have learned to play the game the way it's played now. So for example, base running and hitting line drive singles and doubles and fielding used to be more important in baseball, so those players 100 years ago did those things. Today it's more about home runs, so players learn to do those things. The first basemen on many teams is not a great fielder. "The bat plays." The mid-range jump shot (I'm not a basketball guy so this is my recollection of what I've read) used to be an important "skill" in basketball, but it's gone and given way to high-percentage short shots and three-point attempts. The game has changed, and if you asked basketball players from the 1960s to throw up as many three-point attempts as you see now, their shooting percentage would likely be lower than modern basketball players who spend more time working on those skills.
Just because it's a "different" skill doesn't mean it's less skilled.
Golf course architects do things differently now than they did 100 years ago. Are you "less skilled" of an architect because you have different skills?
They aren't used to having to hit their drives in the center of a small clubface.
Oh stop. Y'all act like guys on the PGA Tour can't hit the center of the clubface. They aren't mis-hitting their small-headed 3W all the time. And they're doing that with longer and lighter shafts, both of which make it more difficult to find the center of the face.
-
I actually agree with Erik on this one but perhaps for different reasons.
In Sam or Jacks day, a great player had to go thru far far less other good or even great players to excel and be successful on the PGA Tour. And Jack has basically admitted this. But now, with the widespread popularity and proliferation of the game and being accessible to a much wider pool of potential high skill players on a global level....its a proverbial gauntlet just to get to the Korn Ferry tour (or equivalent), much less the PGATour and excel at that level.
So the question to me is, if Tiger was born 50 years prior to when he was, would he have ever become Tiger? I highly doubt it for a number of reasons.
-
Just because it's a "different" skill doesn't mean it's less skilled.
Golf course architects do things differently now than they did 100 years ago. Are you "less skilled" of an architect because you have different skills?
They aren't used to having to hit their drives in the center of a small clubface.
Oh stop. Y'all act like guys on the PGA Tour can't hit the center of the clubface. They aren't mis-hitting their small-headed 3W all the time. And they're doing that with longer and lighter shafts, both of which make it more difficult to find the center of the face.
I will let Mike Clayton argue with you on this point, since he participates here. He loves to put persimmon clubs in the hands of young players to see what they can do.
But Mike is not the only one who has said to me that Norman's big advantage back in his prime, and certainly Nicklaus's big advantage in his prime, was being able to consistently hit their drivers at something close to full speed, which most other players back then [even Tour players] did not do very consistently at all.
I agree with you that there are a lot more players who are really competitive today than there were 20 years ago or 50 years ago. Padraig Harrington said as much to me this summer -- he has to go full out, because there are so many good players now he can't lay back and have a chance to win. But some of that is because the equipment has made it easier. I do not believe there are 80 guys on Tour who could hit Jack Nicklaus' old driver the way Jack did.
-
So for example, base running and hitting line drive singles and doubles and fielding used to be more important in baseball, so those players 100 years ago did those things. Today it's more about home runs, so players learn to do those things.
Given baseball's popularity decline in recent years, the fact that it's become a more one-dimensional game probably hasn't helped matters, has it?
Last Sunday's playoff really crystallized things for me. Is there any question that seeing Patrick Cantlay hole pressure-filled putt after putt was infinitely more impressive and thrilling than watching Bryson DeChambeau swing comically hard with a golf club equivalent of bowling lane bumpers? I mean, it's not even close.
-
Chicks may dig the long ball but as a life-long viewer of televised golf I probably watched less than 20 total hours of the PGA tour since January 2000. This, during a shut-in pandemic.
I find the psuedo-drama of -28 beating a group at -27 basically unwatchable. We talk about how the powers that be let equipment out of control but how about snail-like slow play? There is more action on QVC.
-
So for example, base running and hitting line drive singles and doubles and fielding used to be more important in baseball, so those players 100 years ago did those things. Today it's more about home runs, so players learn to do those things.
Given baseball's popularity decline in recent years, the fact that it's become a more one-dimensional game probably hasn't helped matters, has it?
Last Sunday's playoff really crystallized things for me. Is there any question that seeing Patrick Cantlay hole pressure-filled putt after putt was infinitely more impressive and thrilling than watching Bryson DeChambeau swing comically hard with a golf club equivalent of bowling lane bumpers? I mean, it's not even close.
Interesting comparison when you consider that Major League Baseball has, RATHER QUIETLY, tweaked the equipment almost annually for the past 15 or so years in some way or the other.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2930509-mlb-reportedly-making-changes-to-baseballs-to-control-home-run-rate (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2930509-mlb-reportedly-making-changes-to-baseballs-to-control-home-run-rate)
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/will-mlbs-altered-ball-change-2021-home-run-rate-heres-what-players-and-spring-stats-are-saying-about-it/
The height of the seams has also been tweaked.
-
Last Sunday's playoff really crystallized things for me. Is there any question that seeing Patrick Cantlay hole pressure-filled putt after putt was infinitely more impressive and thrilling than watching Bryson DeChambeau swing comically hard with a golf club equivalent of bowling lane bumpers? I mean, it's not even close.
+1
-
I actually agree with Erik on this one but perhaps for different reasons.
In Sam or Jacks day, a great player had to go thru far far less other good or even great players to excel and be successful on the PGA Tour. And Jack has basically admitted this. But now, with the widespread popularity and proliferation of the game and being accessible to a much wider pool of potential high skill players on a global level....its a proverbial gauntlet just to get to the Korn Ferry tour (or equivalent), much less the PGATour and excel at that level.
So the question to me is, if Tiger was born 50 years prior to when he was, would he have ever become Tiger? I highly doubt it for a number of reasons.
Two points here. First, try to never agree with Erik. That’s a blanket statement that will serve you well. Second, if Tiger had been born 50 years earlier, his skill still would have shown itself. Yes, there are other factors like access to the game, but based purely on skill, Tiger would have been Tiger. He also might have had a longer career without injury because 50 years ago golfers did not train like Navy SEALS.
Another post made the point that the advantage the great drivers like Nicklaus and Norman had was the ability to hit the center of the club face with a high-spin ball at full speed. Even most good ballstrikers had to dial back their swing to make sure they hit the center of the club face and not blow drives off the planet…unless you’re Seve and possessed the greatest recovery game in the history of golf.
To me, the greatest argument for a rollback of the ball, or at the very least bifurcation for the professional and top amateur game, is that the increase in distance means that we never would get to see a player like Lee Trevino because, despite his ballstriking, he simply would not be long enough to succeed in the modern game. If the modern game cannot allow the genius of someone like Trevino to shine through, then something is fundamentally wrong.
-
So for example, base running and hitting line drive singles and doubles and fielding used to be more important in baseball, so those players 100 years ago did those things. Today it's more about home runs, so players learn to do those things.
Interesting comparison when you consider that Major League Baseball has, RATHER QUIETLY, tweaked the equipment almost annually for the past 15 or so years in some way or the other.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2930509-mlb-reportedly-making-changes-to-baseballs-to-control-home-run-rate (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2930509-mlb-reportedly-making-changes-to-baseballs-to-control-home-run-rate)
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/will-mlbs-altered-ball-change-2021-home-run-rate-heres-what-players-and-spring-stats-are-saying-about-it/ (https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/will-mlbs-altered-ball-change-2021-home-run-rate-heres-what-players-and-spring-stats-are-saying-about-it/)
The height of the seams has also been tweaked.
Tennis slowed down the ball a few years ago.
Atb
-
Last Sunday's playoff really crystallized things for me. Is there any question that seeing Patrick Cantlay hole pressure-filled putt after putt was infinitely more impressive and thrilling than watching Bryson DeChambeau swing comically hard with a golf club equivalent of bowling lane bumpers? I mean, it's not even close.
+1
The crazy thing is that Bryson D finished the tournament 2nd in stroke gained putting (behind Cantlay obviously).
-
No one - certainly not me - disputes the skills of the modern player. Techniques are surely both improved and less idiosyncratic - despite Furyk,DJ,Wolff and other obvious examples. They should be with video and trackman - and better teaching.
They are certainly no less skilled than the greats of past generations (which was my point) but I assume we can agree the modern player looks more impressive now because the equipment is so much easier to use. I watched a great 19-year old player do a Titleist fitting earlier this year and was looking for a 7 wood - but being a leftie couldn't get one. His bulbous 3 iron went high but he wanted one that went higher - hence asking for the 7 wood. Instead they gave him an even more bulbous 3 iron which immediately went noticeably higher.
The shots they hit are amazing - no doubt - and I dont doubt they could all play great golf with the clubs Nicklaus and Weiskopf (who was way more than a "good golfer") used - but I doubt the shots would be any more impressive than the shots those guys were hitting. Or Miller, Seve, Snead,Hogan, Trevino,Norman.
-
“But some of that is because the equipment has made it easier. I do not believe there are 80 guys on Tour who could hit Jack Nicklaus' old driver the way Jack did.”
My point exactly
-
No one - certainly not me - disputes the skills of the modern player. Techniques are surely both improved and less idiosyncratic - despite Furyk,DJ,Wolff and other obvious examples. They should be with video and trackman - and better teaching.
They are certainly no less skilled than the greats of past generations (which was my point) but I assume we can agree the modern player looks more impressive now because the equipment is so much easier to use. I watched a great 19-year old player do a Titleist fitting earlier this year and was looking for a 7 wood - but being a leftie couldn't get one. His bulbous 3 iron went high but he wanted one that went higher - hence asking for the 7 wood. Instead they gave him an even more bulbous 3 iron which immediately went noticeably higher.
The shots they hit are amazing - no doubt - and I dont doubt they could all play great golf with the clubs Nicklaus and Weiskopf (who was way more than a "good golfer") used - but I doubt the shots would be any more impressive than the shots those guys were hitting. Or Miller, Seve, Snead,Hogan, Trevino,Norman.
This is backtracking your statement a bit.
It’s like saying Lewis Hamilton wouldn’t be able to drive a Model T any more impressively than any race driver of that era.
Well duh. You’re not saying much.
The other implied conclusion of your original statement is that given modern equipment those guys would probably be regularly shooting in the 50s.
-
Kyle
In the article I said no one will convince me the modern guys are superior athletes to Snead,Nicklaus,Seve,Weiskopf. They just aren't. We can argue all day about quality of fields but at 60,61 and 62 years old Snead was 4th,9th and 3rd in the PGA Championship. That's one hell of an athlete.
And why would Hamilton drive more impressively than Fangio - who drove every day with the fear of death as did his contemporaries.
The analogy is perhaps relevant to golf - the older equipment surely had players more on the edge the the modern stuff. When we the last time you saw a real duck hook?
And I certainly never implied those old guys would be shooting in the 50s.
-
Kyle
In the article I said no one will convince me the modern guys are superior athletes to Snead,Nicklaus,Seve,Weiskopf. They just aren't. We can argue all day about quality of fields but at 60,61 and 62 years old Snead was 4th,9th and 3rd in the PGA Championship. That's one hell of an athlete.
And why would Hamilton drive more impressively than Fangio - who drove every day with the fear of death as did his contemporaries.
The analogy is perhaps relevant to golf - the older equipment surely had players more on the edge the the modern stuff. When we the last time you saw a real duck hook?
And I certainly never implied those old guys would be shooting in the 50s.
You did though. If modern golfers are not superior, athletically, to Nicklaus, et. al. nor must they use the same shots/tool box as Nicklaus, et. al. then in giving a Nicklaus in his prime a modern tool set, it follows quite clearly that he would be shooting some rather ridiculously low numbers.
As for the duck hook? I’ll plead the 5th. ;D
-
I will let Mike Clayton argue with you on this point, since he participates here. He loves to put persimmon clubs in the hands of young players to see what they can do.
Nobody (that I know of) is saying they'd instantly be better. But Dustin Johnson hit Jack's old 1-iron and driver or something, too, and hit them pretty far pretty quickly. Different skills are not "less skilled."
Give a modern tennis player a wood framed racket and they'd struggle (for them) for a bit. Give them enough time and they'd begin to show off.
But Mike is not the only one who has said to me that Norman's big advantage back in his prime, and certainly Nicklaus's big advantage in his prime, was being able to consistently hit their drivers at something close to full speed, which most other players back then [even Tour players] did not do very consistently at all.
You could also take that to say… "players back then weren't as skilled." :)
I do not believe there are 80 guys on Tour who could hit Jack Nicklaus' old driver the way Jack did.
But Tom, there only have to be about two guys who could do it for those guys to be "just as" or "more skilled," no? ;D I think that, given a little while to learn how to hit it, that there are more than two or three guys who could do it.
Second, if Tiger had been born 50 years earlier, his skill still would have shown itself. Yes, there are other factors like access to the game, but based purely on skill, Tiger would have been Tiger.
Born 50 years earlier, Tiger would have won significantly more often, given that he'd be playing against club pros, far fewer international players, etc.
Another post made the point that the advantage the great drivers like Nicklaus and Norman had was the ability to hit the center of the club face with a high-spin ball at full speed. Even most good ballstrikers had to dial back their swing to make sure they hit the center of the club face and not blow drives off the planet…unless you’re Seve and possessed the greatest recovery game in the history of golf.
Again, this tracks with golfers back then not being as skilled. ;)
To me, the greatest argument for a rollback of the ball, or at the very least bifurcation for the professional and top amateur game, is that the increase in distance means that we never would get to see a player like Lee Trevino because, despite his ballstriking, he simply would not be long enough to succeed in the modern game. If the modern game cannot allow the genius of someone like Trevino to shine through, then something is fundamentally wrong.
Lee was less than ten yards shorter than Jack in the 1980 driving distance stats. Lee probably wouldn't succeed today because he hit the ball pretty low. Lee was comfortably top half (and nearly top third) in driving distance in 1980: https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.y1980.html (https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.y1980.html).
-
59 years old and have a handicap that hasn’t changed in the last 25 to 30 years. I hit my jacked up 790’s the same distance I hit my 1989 ping eye 2’s. I hit my driver straighter and farther than I ever did with my original Taylor metal driver. I can’t imagine what I would shoot with my old equipment and a balata ball. My scores say my skills are the same. No way.
-
Actually a pretty good thread...
-
Kyle
In the article I said no one will convince me the modern guys are superior athletes to Snead,Nicklaus,Seve,Weiskopf. They just aren't. We can argue all day about quality of fields but at 60,61 and 62 years old Snead was 4th,9th and 3rd in the PGA Championship. That's one hell of an athlete.
And why would Hamilton drive more impressively than Fangio - who drove every day with the fear of death as did his contemporaries.
The analogy is perhaps relevant to golf - the older equipment surely had players more on the edge the the modern stuff. When we the last time you saw a real duck hook?
And I certainly never implied those old guys would be shooting in the 50s.
You did though. If modern golfers are not superior, athletically, to Nicklaus, et. al. nor must they use the same shots/tool box as Nicklaus, et. al. then in giving a Nicklaus in his prime a modern tool set, it follows quite clearly that he would be shooting some rather ridiculously low numbers.
As for the duck hook? I’ll plead the 5th. ;D
No modern golfer is athletically superior to Nicklaus or Snead. Equal, yes. Superior no. Tiger aside. In my opinion.
Who knows what Jack would score - like Tiger he scored what he had to and raised his game accordingly.
-
Who knows what Jack would score - like Tiger he scored what he had to and raised his game accordingly.
Jack also had the uncanny ability to predict the winning score for a major tournament and often played with the idea that the field would come back to him. I have long thought that he had so many second-place finishes because he did what he thought he needed to and sometimes was wrong.
He even said something about it a few years ago and there were a lot of Internet experts who thought he was just jealous of Tiger.
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.
-
Are modern players more skilled than Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus, Greg Norman, Tom Weiskopf or Severiano Ballesteros? Based on the equipment and ball they were using then vs today I would say not even close.
Coming from you, that's not surprising in the least.
But, yeah, you're probably right: golf is the only sport in existence that's grown, but somehow has produced worse athletes.
I deliberately didn't say "worse athletes"
I asked if they were more skilled.
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.
-
Just because it's a "different" skill doesn't mean it's less skilled.
Golf course architects do things differently now than they did 100 years ago. Are you "less skilled" of an architect because you have different skills?
They aren't used to having to hit their drives in the center of a small clubface.
Oh stop. Y'all act like guys on the PGA Tour can't hit the center of the clubface. They aren't mis-hitting their small-headed 3W all the time. And they're doing that with longer and lighter shafts, both of which make it more difficult to find the center of the face.
I will let Mike Clayton argue with you on this point, since he participates here. He loves to put persimmon clubs in the hands of young players to see what they can do.
But Mike is not the only one who has said to me that Norman's big advantage back in his prime, and certainly Nicklaus's big advantage in his prime, was being able to consistently hit their drivers at something close to full speed, which most other players back then [even Tour players] did not do very consistently at all.
I agree with you that there are a lot more players who are really competitive today than there were 20 years ago or 50 years ago. Padraig Harrington said as much to me this summer -- he has to go full out, because there are so many good players now he can't lay back and have a chance to win. But some of that is because the equipment has made it easier. I do not believe there are 80 guys on Tour who could hit Jack Nicklaus' old driver the way Jack did.
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.
Ciao
-
Chicks may dig the long ball but as a life-long viewer of televised golf I probably watched less than 20 total hours of the PGA tour since January 2000. This, during a shut-in pandemic.
I find the psuedo-drama of -28 beating a group at -27 basically unwatchable. We talk about how the powers that be let equipment out of control but how about snail-like slow play? There is more action on QVC.
The entertainment value of golf is a separate issue which has as much to do with number crunching stat style culture, branding, merch etc as it does with golf.
Ciao
-
There’s an equipment aspect to comparing those playing in the modern era with those from 30-40 yds ago and it’s not the ball nor the Driver. It’s the lob wedge.
A fixture in elite (and not so elite) players bags these days. Unheard of a few decades ago.
Seve might not have needed/used one (“I have hands”) but the majority of the the others would have.
Atb
-
There’s an equipment aspect to comparing those playing in the modern era with those from 30-40 yds ago and it’s not the ball nor the Driver. It’s the lob wedge.
A fixture in elite (and not so elite) players bags these days. Unheard of a few decades ago.
Seve might not have needed/used one (“I have hands”) but the majority of the the others would have.
Atb
Thomas,
I agree the 60 degree wedge has made a big difference but I was using one by 1984 and Tom Kite (the first I think) had one by 1981 at least.
A significant change was in the early 1990s when Roger Cleveland came out with his wedges - the best ever made and a significant improvement on the clubs of the 1980s.
Essentially almost every wedge made now is a copy (certainly the shape) of what he made - kind of like Scotty Cameron doing what he does to Ping putters.
-
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.
-
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 think Jack would be smart enough to make good use of all the modern advantages. 😎
It's dubious to say you can only look at Jack in his time and then say modern guys would beat him. You can't have it both ways.
Ciao
-
Actually a pretty good thread...
Agreed!
I do not agree with Eric on this issue but he makes his points well to a hostile crowd. Much better than the echo chamber you get on this or any other issue on social media.
-
I think Erik is simply saying the numbers make it clear each generation produces More and Better. If Jack is the sacred cow, I'd bet Erik would agree that Jack would have been better than Hogan simply because he had to be 20 / 30 years later to achieve comparable results.
On the Rollback topic; I would absolutely love to hear from Jay Monahan on this...and in reality, without his opinion, this whole conversation really falls flat. I use Monahan as simply the voice, authority of the professional game. If you want to use Rory (as the Players Advisory Council Chairman), fine. The vast majority of concern here is how the elite players play the game and diminish the challenge. How would the Tour react if a 15% - 20% rollback through bifurcation were instituted tomorrow?
Does anyone here think the Tour would play with 20% reduced distance equipment while I was able to play with whatever I wanted?
-
Enjoyed the article Matthew.
On Monday, I played in the USGA 4-Ball Qualifier. It rained a lot prior to the round and the course was already soft. So, there was absolutely no roll that day.
I'm 46 and my partner is 51. We have nearly identical games. We both typically carry our tee shots in the 250-265 yard range. My 5 iron goes 190 yards and his 180 yards (probably just a difference in loft).
We were paired with two high school seniors. Both were good players, but both were struggling to get any attention from division 1 programs. They routinely outdrove us by 30-50 yards. I think one of them flew his 2 iron past my driver.
Other than driving distance (and 2 clubs less per iron shot), our games were very similar. And, the only reason that I could find for the different distance was growing up in different eras. I grew up in an era where speed was not the single most important factor in golf. No one went all out, all the time. These two kids grew up in an era where everything, and most importantly the club and ball technology, says to go all out all the time.
These kids were not better athletes than me. In fact, I'm pretty sure they only played golf. I played every sport except American football. I played club/select soccer for years and very likely could have earner a college scholarship if I hadn't decided to focus on golf. My buddy grew up in South Africa playing rugby, cricket, etc. in addition to golf.
On the one hand, I don't care what happens at the pro level. Just eliminate the concept of a par 5 (there are basically no three shot holes for tour pros) and all the under par scores go up by 12-16 shots per tournament. The problem is there are thousands of younger players hitting the ball miles. Even in my recent club championship, which I won, I was outdriven in my last two matches by an average of 30 yards by two under 20 year old players.
There is a just a massive difference in distance based on what era you grew up in. It wouldn't be a problem if courses could easily be made longer and longer. But, that just isn't the case. Many courses that were built away from more urban areas are now in urban areas and are land locked (my club is a perfect example). Additional land is expensive. The maintenance of longer courses is cost prohibitive. Longer courses take longer to play. And, I don't remember having to be so worried about balls flying at me from others holes as I do today on older, more compact courses.
And, there's a reason many of my millenial friends have extra sets of clubs of wooden drivers and forged blades. They love playing the game with them.
Jim,
I see the problem as more than the tour as there is a new generation of golfers that have grown up approaching the game in a entirely different way. These younger players are so much longer than my generation was at there age. And, there are lots of them.
So, it seems to me a general roll back is necessary.
What are your thoughts on that?
-
I saw that post the other day Steve, and agree a full rollback would be fine. Personally, I see it effecting me not in the least. I would play whatever is available and probably beat the guys I beat now and lost to the guys I lose to now.
I also believe what Mike Clayton says often...that if the rollback started as bifurcation, the good players would switch to the new (rolled back) balls and clubs almost immediately. The nearly good players would soon after and within a couple years everyone would be playing the shorter stuff and just figure it out on their own course and within their own groups.
My point is very simple; nobody thinks the guys you played with need to be regulated. They think the Tour guys playing 500 yard holes with a drive of 320 and an 8 iron from 180 and shooting 28 under has lost the plot. Not sure I agree or disagree...but I do think the USGA deciding conforming balls, clubs etc...will now go measurable shorter will immediately alienate the TOUR and they'll go their own way and create their own rules. Why wouldn't they?
Some may say screw 'em, let them go but I think the USGA feels, as I do, that consistency across all levels of play in golf is one of it's greatest strengths.
Would a full rollback be easier than bifurcation? Not sure.
-
I think Jack would be smart enough to make good use of all the modern advantages. 😎
It has nothing to do with being smart. Just as Tiger was "hurt" by the slight elevation of those a notch below him by modern equipment, so too would Jack have been.
It's dubious to say you can only look at Jack in his time and then say modern guys would beat him. You can't have it both ways.
It's not at all. You're not understanding the argument.
Jack said it himself, too, in 1996 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1433464237565882372 (https://twitter.com/iacas/status/1433464237565882372)):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-SwIG3WEAYQBVD?format=jpg&name=medium)
It's simple math.
I think Erik is simply saying the numbers make it clear each generation produces More and Better. If Jack is the sacred cow, I'd bet Erik would agree that Jack would have been better than Hogan simply because he had to be 20 / 30 years later to achieve comparable results.
Yep. Even if they'd achieved similar numbers, Jack > Hogan. Jack himself agrees per the statement above.
On the Rollback topic; I would absolutely love to hear from Jay Monahan on this...and in reality, without his opinion, this whole conversation really falls flat.
Agreed there as well.
Does anyone here think the Tour would play with 20% reduced distance equipment while I was able to play with whatever I wanted?
You don't think people want to see Rory hitting it like 245? :)
-
Good points above.
I’m on the rollback, or re-calibrate as I prefer to call it, side of the argument. Lots of reasons why I’m on that side of the fence which I’ve detailed before so won’t mention again here.
I wouldn’t have a problem with bifurcation though.
Indeed I’d quite like to see a range of bifurcated balls, bit like the different colour spot spec in squash.
This way older folks, the less physically able and the very young could play a ball that would actually go further whereas the balance of players, ie the rest of us, could play something more appropriate distance wise.
It wouldn’t surprise me if peer pressure, ie potential embarrassment, didn’t effect which spec/colour spot ball many amateurs chose in social/peer group golf and then there’s the opportunity for organisers to impose a condition of competition rule for well, officially organised competition play at whatever relevant level.
A lot depends on money £$ though, what doesn’t, and balls, or rather the cajones of the powers that be within the game. Unless that is something outside the game forces the powers to be to act.
Atb
-
I saw that post the other day Steve, and agree a full rollback would be fine. Personally, I see it effecting me not in the least. I would play whatever is available and probably beat the guys I beat now and lost to the guys I lose to now.
I also believe what Mike Clayton says often...that if the rollback started as bifurcation, the good players would switch to the new (rolled back) balls and clubs almost immediately. The nearly good players would soon after and within a couple years everyone would be playing the shorter stuff and just figure it out on their own course and within their own groups.
My point is very simple; nobody thinks the guys you played with need to be regulated. They think the Tour guys playing 500 yard holes with a drive of 320 and an 8 iron from 180 and shooting 28 under has lost the plot. Not sure I agree or disagree...but I do think the USGA deciding conforming balls, clubs etc...will now go measurable shorter will immediately alienate the TOUR and they'll go their own way and create their own rules. Why wouldn't they?
Some may say screw 'em, let them go but I think the USGA feels, as I do, that consistency across all levels of play in golf is one of it's greatest strengths.
Would a full rollback be easier than bifurcation? Not sure.
Agree with everything here except the part about the PGAT saying screw it and going their own way.
Don't Titleist, Callaway, etc. have as much to lose from that as the USGA? Take away the promise of playing what Tour players play and the big manufacturers lose a lot of marketing excitement. No more "win on Sunday, sell on Monday".
-
I think the manufacturer's would very easily sell non-conforming clubs and people would buy them. The USGA's only leverage is their events and those of participating golf associations.
That mandate means a lot to me, probably Steve Kline, and likely 50 - 100 others on this board. But across the spectrum of my golf course, we have 30 - 50 good competitive players that this would impact, the other 400 would very easily play whatever they could.
Everybody thinks the USGA are cowards for picking around the edges of distance and playability. I think they see a bad decision resulting in their irrelevance...who wouldn't tip toe with those consequences.
Back to Jay Monahan...does he want Rory hitting it 245?
-
My point is very simple; nobody thinks the guys you played with need to be regulated. They think the Tour guys playing 500 yard holes with a drive of 320 and an 8 iron from 180 and shooting 28 under has lost the plot.
I basically agree with your post.
In the part I quoted, I have actually grown less and less concerned with what Tour pros shoot as time has gone on. If you don't like -28, change the par. It could have been -12 last week by making every par 5 a par 4. Or, do some other thing to raise scores. I really don't care.
The people I played with recently were hitting driver and 9 iron on a 473 yard par 4 with absolutely zero roll. So, I'm sure they hit driver and 8 iron on 500 yard par under normal questions. (Granted that aren't shooting -28.) So, I think there is a bigger problem for the game that there is a whole generation of players that are good but never going to make any level of professional golf that now hit it this far. The members at the clubs these guys play tournaments at, don't want to see their courses beaten up by them. Or, these guys get on grounds committees and want to toughen up the course for themselves. So, they lengthen the course and make it harder. This is exactly what Maketewah in Cincinnati has done as it is host to a local U.S. Open qualifier and the home course for Xavier University. I think this is a far bigger problem for the game than the scores we see shot on TV being too low for someone's liking.
-
Back to Jay Monahan...does he want Rory hitting it 245?
Absolutely not.
And, the one player I actually tune in to watch is Bryson. I personally don't like the guy, but I like watching him because of how he changed his game to bomb it.
And, while I was at the driving range the other, there was a little kid, maybe 5 years old hitting balls. Guess what Tour player I heard him talking about? Yep...Bryson.
-
Interesting take from Phil Mickelson (https://twitter.com/i/status/1433461002746548227) on a ball rollback: (1:48 mark)
"If you remember when the liquid center golf ball was the ball of choice 20 years ago, there was more weight on the center of the ball than there was on the perimeter. Also, the liquid center did not spin at the same rate as the outer cover at impact. So at impact the outer cover was spinning fast, and the liquid was spinning at a slower rate.
When the spin of the liquid and the outer cover matched, the outer covers momentum slowed down, and the liquid center was faster… What if we just got rid of the perimeter weighting so the golf ball wasn’t as stable and we had more weight in the center of the golf ball, we are going to get more side spin. Who’s that going to affect? The guy that hits it 300 yards instead of 200 yards.”
I like this approach. The potential for higher side spin will restore a control element to the ball that has been lacking at the pro level for quite some time. Players distance will not be limited but will require higher level execution to maximize it. At the same time the increase in back spin could be an assistance to the average player.
-
I think the manufacturer's would very easily sell non-conforming clubs and people would buy them. The USGA's only leverage is their events and those of participating golf associations.
Your support for that is…? Almost nobody buys those illegal golf balls. Arnie's reputation took a hit endorsing the ERC II (IIRC), TaylorMade never went anywhere with their "proposed" crazy ideas.
"If you remember when the liquid center golf ball was the ball of choice 20 years ago, there was more weight on the center of the ball than there was on the perimeter. Also, the liquid center did not spin at the same rate as the outer cover at impact. So at impact the outer cover was spinning fast, and the liquid was spinning at a slower rate.
He's not said much here, so he's not said anything incorrect. Yet.
When the spin of the liquid and the outer cover matched, the outer covers momentum slowed down, and the liquid center was faster…
No…
What if we just got rid of the perimeter weighting so the golf ball wasn’t as stable and we had more weight in the center of the golf ball, we are going to get more side spin. Who’s that going to affect? The guy that hits it 300 yards instead of 200 yards.”
In other words… Phil thinks a fraction "more spin" is the cause, when we all should know that even doubling the amount of spin doesn't do a whole lot. Adding 10% won't do anything (and players would work around that and get back to their good numbers in little time).
I like this approach. The potential for higher side spin will restore a control element to the ball that has been lacking at the pro level for quite some time. Players distance will not be limited but will require higher level execution to maximize it. At the same time the increase in back spin could be an assistance to the average player.
No. A few hundred RPM more spin would do bupkis. Doubling it doesn't even have a large effect.
-
Interesting take from Phil Mickelson (https://twitter.com/i/status/1433461002746548227) on a ball rollback: (1:48 mark)
"If you remember when the liquid center golf ball was the ball of choice 20 years ago, there was more weight on the center of the ball than there was on the perimeter. Also, the liquid center did not spin at the same rate as the outer cover at impact. So at impact the outer cover was spinning fast, and the liquid was spinning at a slower rate.
When the spin of the liquid and the outer cover matched, the outer covers momentum slowed down, and the liquid center was faster… What if we just got rid of the perimeter weighting so the golf ball wasn’t as stable and we had more weight in the center of the golf ball, we are going to get more side spin. Who’s that going to affect? The guy that hits it 300 yards instead of 200 yards.”
I like this approach. The potential for higher side spin will restore a control element to the ball that has been lacking at the pro level for quite some time. Players distance will not be limited but will require higher level execution to maximize it. At the same time the increase in back spin could be an assistance to the average player.
If you had asked me to guess who said that then I would have guessed Bryson.
-
Back to Jay Monahan...does he want Rory hitting it 245?
I suspect if the money involved was great enough and went into the pockets of the appropriate vested interests neither of them nor loads of others would have a problem with it.
Cha-ching.
Atb
-
If you had asked me to guess who said that then I would have guessed Bryson.
Right? I have to wonder if The USGA got with Phil after his driver length comments and suggested he float out the previous on the ball construction as that is the way they're actually leaning and using Phil as a weather balloon can help them read the room.
Erik,
Do you know the MOI of a new Pro V1 vs. a Tour Balata? How would the MOI difference between the two balls impact their spin number both in back spin and side spin. If the MOI difference between those two balls is not great enough to change spin in a significant way, how much of an MOI difference would be required?
If increase the spin of the ball would do "bupkis", are you suggesting that the spin and control of balls 25 years ago has been blown out of proportion, or has the game overcome the negative effects of those balls?
-
Do you know the MOI of a new Pro V1 vs. a Tour Balata?
It wouldn't be hard to figure out. Just a density problem. I don't know it off-hand, but it's not like the ball has lead in the middle and is surrounded by air. It had a little liquid and was surrounded by pretty tightly wound rubber. I'd be surprised if the density was more than a little different from a modern ball.
If increase the spin of the ball would do "bupkis", are you suggesting that the spin and control of balls 25 years ago has been blown out of proportion, or has the game overcome the negative effects of those balls?
A fractional increase in ball spin would do bupkis. I say this because even a 100% increase (doubling) in ball spin doesn't do as much as people seem to think. Plug in the numbers into a launch optimizer, you'll see. I think I posted pictures earlier up-thread.
People act like the Tour Balata spun like crazy off the driver. It didn't. And even if you could make a Pro V1x spin 500 RPM more, it'd result in a pretty small change in distance/curve, and also be worked around pretty quickly by the tour guys (reps, players, fitters, engineers).
I'll quote a friend who made these:
The main issue with what Phil is trying to argue here is that spin rate has very little to do with how much a ball will curve - that's governed primarily by the spin axis. More or less spin with the same spin axis will have very little effect on the measured curvature of a golf ball, because most reasonable spin axis values (ball not dramatically hooking or slicing) are 10% or less. Going from 2500 RPM to 5500 RPM, which is MASSIVE on a tee shot, will produce the following curvatures with a 5% spin axis and PGA Tour-level ball speeds (180 MPH):
(https://thesandtrap.com/uploads/monthly_2021_09/1984850614_CurveDifference.thumb.JPG.73447e434a821ef9569e29bc930ff661.JPG)
(https://thesandtrap.com/uploads/monthly_2021_09/649055366_5500RPMspinrate.thumb.JPG.c3b9216763d6d07dfdc28398cb35c8d4.JPG)
The difference is so tiny you have to zoom in REALLY close to even see the grey line that shows the path of the 2500 RPM tee shot, because they both curved very nearly the same distance off line.
Phil's comments about ball spin are uninformed.
-
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?
It seems to me that offering trackman data without such data from the previous era is somewhat meaningless.
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'
-
At some point the game has to decide
PGA Tour players are not "the game." They're a teeny tiny part of "the game."
-
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.
-
(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."
-
...
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.
-
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
-
(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.
-
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 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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
(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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
Don’t you think they talked about this before they spent $15m rebuilding the course two years ago?
Presumably, they also would have asked the USGA if they had plans to make more equipment rules than limiting the length of the driver, under some sort of NDA.
-
1983 isn't that long ago and it proved the game moved on just fine even after the ball was rolled back.
1983 was an incredibly long time ago — it predates the Internet as we know it today by quite a bit — and it affected a minority number of golfers… none of whom could go on the Internet to complain, band together, etc. ;)
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?
It's not about that. If you wanted the game to be more fun for 50%, there are likely better ways to do it than just making the ball go farther.
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.
Nobody has ever provided any actual numbers here. How many courses are trying to get to 7500 yards? How many even bother? I would venture to say that it's fewer than many seem to think. And like JK has said many times, if a club wants to spend its own money… But, again, what % of courses have added 10%+ to their length in the last 20 years? The last 10?
6500 yards is plenty of length for 90%+ of golfers. The top 0.1% are not "the game."
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.
No, Garland, the problem is you can't actually put together an argument or refute anything, so you go ad hominem at every chance. Plug the numbers into a launch/flight simulator.
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.
I said it doesn't make as much of a difference as many seem to think. If you can gain 5 yards and an extra half degree of accuracy, that's great for a fitting. Not so much for a "rollback alliance's" hopes and dreams. Plug in the numbers and see for yourself what doubling the spin rate does.
-
6500 yards is plenty of length for 90%+ of golfers. The top 0.1% are not "the game."
It would maybe help your arguments if you weren’t so shifty, like the above. Are the top 10% of players “the game”? Most of them think they are, I’d wager.
It would be better for golf architecture if the ball were rolled back. I feel like Mike and I could be considered expert witnesses on that matter, more than you.
The fact that golf manufacturers can rally people to complain about regulating equipment may make it hard to change things, but we have plenty of recent evidence that you can get a lot of people to resist something that would benefit the community as a whole.
-
Erik
It's true it was before the Internet - before golfers could have banded together and stopped something that was clearly good for the game.
-
Funny, trying to reverse the aging process I was working with my fitter to find irons I could hit father. Best I could pick up was 5 yards with no loss in accuracy. He told me not worth making the change. I guess the 5 yards was a success because it saved me $1400.
-
This is interesting…
https://golf.com/gear/drivers/how-far-has-distance-increased-5-drivers-from-different-years/?amp=1 (https://golf.com/gear/drivers/how-far-has-distance-increased-5-drivers-from-different-years/?amp=1)
-
He went through all that trouble and only hit 3 balls with each driver?
-
He went through all that trouble and only hit 3 balls with each driver?
He hit balls with a driver and recorded three “solid” hits.
-
This is interesting…
I enjoy these tests but there are so many things that it doesn’t cover IMO
1) I don’t remember a good player using the “Original One” as a driver. I’m sure some did, but most used them as strong fairway woods.
2) the evolution of what we looked for in spin/launch angle/weighting kept changing as well
3) obviously as we learned more about optimums, the biggest change to me was looking for much higher launch and less spin than I liked for my old swing. I had to make a significant change to my swing to hit it higher with a bit more spin to be able to use the equipment I started using when I returned to competitive golf in 2014
https://golf.com/gear/drivers/how-far-has-distance-increased-5-drivers-from-different-years/?amp=1 (https://golf.com/gear/drivers/how-far-has-distance-increased-5-drivers-from-different-years/?amp=1)
-
6500 yards is plenty of length for 90%+ of golfers. The top 0.1% are not "the game."
It would maybe help your arguments if you weren’t so shifty, like the above. Are the top 10% of players “the game”? Most of them think they are, I’d wager.
It would be better for golf architecture if the ball were rolled back. I feel like Mike and I could be considered expert witnesses on that matter, more than you.
The fact that golf manufacturers can rally people to complain about regulating equipment may make it hard to change things, but we have plenty of recent evidence that you can get a lot of people to resist something that would benefit the community as a whole.
Nicely said.
‘Shifty’ and ‘Lies, damn lies and statistics’ go together nicely.
How much information do those in charge of the game need before they’ll make a decision?
Or is it just that they’re chicken?
Atb
-
It would maybe help your arguments if you weren’t so shifty, like the above. Are the top 10% of players “the game”? Most of them think they are, I’d wager.
Nothing shifty there. I've said the same few things for awhile now. For the 10%, there are many courses they can play that are over 6500 yards.
Both can exist:
- We shouldn't make decisions based on a tiny %, and that tiny % aren't "the game."
- 6500 yards is enough for 90%+ of golfers. For the other 10%, there are courses they can play that measure over 6500.
It would be better for golf architecture if the ball were rolled back. I feel like Mike and I could be considered expert witnesses on that matter, more than you.
You are an expert on building a golf course, on "golf architecture." Of course. But that's just one piece of this "rollback" stuff.
Like I said, we've been over this a bunch, so… no need to re-hash it again. Nobody's changed their opinions, and until that happens… what's new to discuss?
-
- 6500 yards is enough for 90%+ of golfers. For the other 10%, there are courses they can play that measure over 6500.
It's become increasingly clear that, left unchecked, club + ball will make it so something more like 8,000 yards is sufficient for that remaining 10%. So that's 10% of golfers who demand 23% more golf course in order to play the game. All that extra golf course acreage costs a bit more money and time to maintain, doesn't it?
I know Brad Klein has observed - correctly - that people who play the longest tees on many golf courses are often playing for free or a significantly discounted rate - they're tournament ams or pros, they're friends of the course, they're raters, etc. What sense does it make to continue to coddle the class of golfer who a) puts both less money into a course and more stress on it, and b) by being more skilled is by definition better able to adapt to potential future moderating changes to equipment?
-
It would maybe help your arguments if you weren’t so shifty, like the above. Are the top 10% of players “the game”? Most of them think they are, I’d wager.
Nothing shifty there. I've said the same few things for awhile now. For the 10%, there are many courses they can play that are over 6500 yards.
Both can exist:
- We shouldn't make decisions based on a tiny %, and that tiny % aren't "the game."
- 6500 yards is enough for 90%+ of golfers. For the other 10%, there are courses they can play that measure over 6500.
It would be better for golf architecture if the ball were rolled back. I feel like Mike and I could be considered expert witnesses on that matter, more than you.
You are an expert on building a golf course, on "golf architecture." Of course. But that's just one piece of this "rollback" stuff.
Like I said, we've been over this a bunch, so… no need to re-hash it again. Nobody's changed their opinions, and until that happens… what's new to discuss?
I thought he was being polite with “shifty”.
-
It's become increasingly clear that, left unchecked, club + ball will make it so something more like 8,000 yards is sufficient for that remaining 10%.
No. And saying it a bunch of times doesn't make it true.
All that extra golf course acreage costs a bit more money and time to maintain, doesn't it?
So does all the width that's en vogue. And a "back tee" often doesn't need more maintained fairway. Just the tee box. If you're on those back tees, you can reach the fairway that starts 30 yards in front of the forward tees.
I know Brad Klein has observed - correctly - that people who play the longest tees on many golf courses are often playing for free or a significantly discounted rate - they're tournament ams or pros, they're friends of the course, they're raters, etc. What sense does it make to continue to coddle the class of golfer who a) puts both less money into a course and more stress on it, and b) by being more skilled is by definition better able to adapt to potential future moderating changes to equipment?
So don't. Don't cater to them. Just say "go somewhere else, we'll let the 95% play." I feel like you argued against yourself there.
-
Erik,
The most startling aspect of your position is how it seeks to absolve itself of all accountability and responsibility for caring for a game that, as is the case with every golfer, has given a whole lot more back to you than you can ever hope to contribute to it.
I know Brad Klein has observed - correctly - that people who play the longest tees on many golf courses are often playing for free or a significantly discounted rate - they're tournament ams or pros, they're friends of the course, they're raters, etc. What sense does it make to continue to coddle the class of golfer who a) puts both less money into a course and more stress on it, and b) by being more skilled is by definition better able to adapt to potential future moderating changes to equipment?
So don't. Don't cater to them. Just say "go somewhere else, we'll let the 95% play." I feel like you argued against yourself there.
"Sorry folks, I know your golf course has made golfers of all abilities happy for a century, but I'm going to have to ask you to reduce your client base because some of them hit it farther than you knew to be possible when your course opened. Hope you planted enough trees between the fairways so that golfers don't get hit by tee shots sprayed farther than you ever expected!"
It is a demonstrable fact that golfers - especially the ones who drive perceptions of what a golf course should be like for the rest of us - hit the ball farther than ever before. This has fundamentally altered the way thousands of golf courses play, relative to the intent of the people who designed them.
Rather than the integrity of these courses - and the small businesses that many of them represent - your position defends the manufacturers, whose combination of R&D talent, marketing savvy and logistics expertise make them a) infinitely more capable of adapting to any modification in the rules around what equipment is competition-conforming, and b) eminently capable of profiting from those changes.
This position is a slap in the face to the golf courses and operators who give the OEMs a reason to exist in the first place.
-
The most startling aspect of your position is how it seeks to absolve itself of all accountability and responsibility for caring for a game that, as is the case with every golfer, has given a whole lot more back to you than you can ever hope to contribute to it.
If you'd like to apply the same logic to everyone who didn't step in and ensure that we're still hitting featheries with grooveless, metal and wooden-headed clubs with wood shafts and no real grips while wearing heavy jackets, then I'd at least applaud your consistency.
I care very much about the game. I simply disagree that there's a "problem" in need of solving across the entire "game" of golf.
"Sorry folks, I know your golf course has made golfers of all abilities happy for a century, but I'm going to have to ask you to reduce your client base because some of them hit it farther than you knew to be possible when your course opened. Hope you planted enough trees between the fairways so that golfers don't get hit by tee shots sprayed farther than you ever expected!"
You said "What sense does it make to continue to coddle the class of golfer" and so my response was "so don't." You pointed out that they're often playing for a reduced or even free rate, so why cater to them? And you said that those were the back tees, implying that if they no longer visited the course, the course would still have room to grow should the 90-95% of golfers somehow find more distance.
It is a demonstrable fact that golfers - especially the ones who drive perceptions of what a golf course should be like for the rest of us - hit the ball farther than ever before. This has fundamentally altered the way thousands of golf courses play, relative to the intent of the people who designed them.
I'm not denying any of that.
And yet, 6500 yards is long enough for the vast majority of golfers, and for those 5 or 10%, there are plenty of courses longer than that for them. For the PGA Tour, a tiny portion of the game, I don't care if they shoot -27 in a week. They're not "the game."
Rather than the integrity of these courses - and the small businesses that many of them represent - your position defends the manufacturers
No, it doesn't. It just doesn't agree that there's a "problem" in need of a solution. It's not like equipment is unregulated and someone's going to find 30 yards via equipment. And my position is also that if a change happens, for the disruption that it causes, that it not be a change just for the sake of change without truly knowing what the end result will be. If you want to say "make the ball spin more," and you don't know exactly what that's going to cause, or how people might work around that in a heartbeat…
Did the grooves rule really change much? Did it accomplish much? Or did the engineers figure out how to work around it pretty quickly? Was it worth it, to change that rule?
-
Erik,
The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.
Here is a case in point that represents many conversations I've had.
Just last weekend I was discussing the upcoming course renovations at my club with a fellow member. Our club maxes out around 6,650 - and that's if you have one foot up against the rough on every hole. He's in his early 30s (I think). He is an 11.7 index. He never plays the back tees.
The first questions out of his mouth was "So, are we going to make the course harder? Are we going to make it longer."
My response, "No, we are going to make it better."
His next response, "Why aren't we going to make it longer? Isn't longer better? Maketewah is longer."
My response, "Longer is not better. Our average member is an 18 handicap. We need to make the course more playable, especially for our high number of senior and women members."
Perhaps needless to say, but he was dumbfounded that the club champion was advocating for a more playable and enjoyable golf course. He automatically equated longer with better. And, from what I've read, many golf course owners run into the exact same perception all the time regardless of the skill level of the golfer.
And, that to me is why this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not as simple as telling the top 10% of golfers to not play your course any more.
-
Erik,
The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.
I agree with this to an extent. There are certainly clueless high handicaps who can only see a golf course for its total yardage.
But, there are also high handicaps who either through learning/traveling or intuition realize there's more to a golf course than that. Plus, they realize that any lengthening or making a course harder for harder's sake is frequently inimical to their interests.
For those high handicaps, frequently what happens is they run into a Green Chair who stops the discussion with "you're a high handicap, what could you possibly know?". So you end up with a group of members, whose opinions/input should be heard, being "bullied" by a putz who's going to spend their money making their course more enjoyable for him.
-
Erik,
The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.
Here is a case in point that represents many conversations I've had.
Just last weekend I was discussing the upcoming course renovations at my club with a fellow member. Our club maxes out around 6,650 - and that's if you have one foot up against the rough on every hole. He's in his early 30s (I think). He is an 11.7 index. He never plays the back tees.
The first questions out of his mouth was "So, are we going to make the course harder? Are we going to make it longer."
My response, "No, we are going to make it better."
His next response, "Why aren't we going to make it longer? Isn't longer better? Maketewah is longer."
My response, "Longer is not better. Our average member is an 18 handicap. We need to make the course more playable, especially for our high number of senior and women members."
Perhaps needless to say, but he was dumbfounded that the club champion was advocating for a more playable and enjoyable golf course. He automatically equated longer with better. And, from what I've read, many golf course owners run into the exact same perception all the time regardless of the skill level of the golfer.
And, that to me is why this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not as simple as telling the top 10% of golfers to not play your course any more.
Steve,
I think the challenge is to make the course more playable and enjoyable for ALL the players. I think that’s were the talent of the architect comes into play. How do you do that without making the course too easy for the better player?
-
The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.
Oh good, anecdotes. ;)
His next response, "Why aren't we going to make it longer? Isn't longer better? Maketewah is longer."
Then educate the guy (which it sounds like you did, or tried to do). Or say "Buddy, you don't play the back tees we have now" and go on about your day.
How do you think this guy would react to hitting it even shorter than he does now?
And, that to me is why this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not as simple as telling the top 10% of golfers to not play your course any more.
I didn't do that. My comment about telling the golfers the one person was complaining about (raters, top ams, the people who play for free or a reduced rate), not the flip side of the 90%. Many courses have tees beyond 6500. I've only said 6500 yards is plenty for 90%+ (I think at times I've said 95%).
I've also called for data on the number of courses that have, in the last 10 years, or 20 years, added 300+ yards, or 500+ yards, to their courses. Many seem to act like it's happening all over the place, but few have shared information about the actual number of courses undergoing this. Is it happening at 5% of courses, or 95%? 60%? 20%?
And even on courses that have added back tees, you'll hear people say "oh, it results in more fairway that needs to be maintained" while simultaneously talking about how they want more width and angles, and ignoring that people from the back tee box are already flying the first 140 yards of fairway anyway.
-
I fell in love with this game many years ago, playing PowerBilt Levelume irons and laminated woods. It was(and still is) a hard game to learn, and improving was a self-esteem builder. I don’t see the reasoning of making things easier just to keep drawing in dollars from the half-commited. Wait, I may have just discovered something…..
-
Erik,
The problem I see with your position is that while it may be the 10% of golfers that hit it farther want courses to be longer and are driving the need for more length, it is the average golfer that has no clue about these topics that is actually a significant driver (no pun intended) of additional length.
Here is a case in point that represents many conversations I've had.
Just last weekend I was discussing the upcoming course renovations at my club with a fellow member. Our club maxes out around 6,650 - and that's if you have one foot up against the rough on every hole. He's in his early 30s (I think). He is an 11.7 index. He never plays the back tees.
The first questions out of his mouth was "So, are we going to make the course harder? Are we going to make it longer."
My response, "No, we are going to make it better."
His next response, "Why aren't we going to make it longer? Isn't longer better? Maketewah is longer."
My response, "Longer is not better. Our average member is an 18 handicap. We need to make the course more playable, especially for our high number of senior and women members."
Perhaps needless to say, but he was dumbfounded that the club champion was advocating for a more playable and enjoyable golf course. He automatically equated longer with better. And, from what I've read, many golf course owners run into the exact same perception all the time regardless of the skill level of the golfer.
And, that to me is why this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It's not as simple as telling the top 10% of golfers to not play your course any more.
Steve,
I think the challenge is to make the course more playable and enjoyable for ALL the players. I think that’s were the talent of the architect comes into play. How do you do that without making the course too easy for the better player?
My club has a great set of greens. If we wanted to defend par we could put holes in places that are fair but would pretty much guarantee none of the members would shoot a good score. The greens have enough slope you have to hit it directly below the hole to make putts. We tend to have pretty firm greens too. So angles on those hole locations become important.
In the top 16 handicaps (the championship flight if the club championship) at the club we have four plus handicaps and then it tales off really fast. The bottom four seeds had an index in the high 3s to over 4.
-
Steve, It's not about defending par it's about making the course challenging from the tee all the way thru the green. A better player is going to want to be tested off the tee and into the greens. They aren't just looking for a putting contest.
I get what you are saying. We just went thru a bunker renovation that also modified some holes. The changes were great and well received by all levels of golfer at our club. Now we are working on a tree program. We hired a great Architect in Ian Andrew. I think there is a very fine line in making changes that work for all levels of golfer. It's a balancing act. A tough one at that. That's all I'm saying.
-
Steve, It's not about defending par it's about making the course challenging from the tee all the way thru the green. A better player is going to want to be tested off the tee and into the greens. They aren't just looking for a putting contest.
I get what you are saying. We just went thru a bunker renovation that also modified some holes. The changes were great and well received by all levels of golfer at our club. Now we are working on a tree program. We hired a great Architect in Ian Andrew. I think there is a very fine line in making changes that work for all levels of golfer. It's a balancing act. A tough one at that. That's all I'm saying.
Okay...I should have said challenging instead of defend par.
The tough hole locations aren't about a putting contest. You can get to them, but you better hit the tee shot in the right place. And, you are going to need to end up below the hole.
For the good player, the test is getting the proper angle to green off the tee not just hitting the fairway (I know the theory that players can't reliably do that). With a renovation at my club, that would mean challenging ravines or bunkers to get the angle to certain hole locations or use the slopes to feed the ball to the green.
-
There shouldn't be much if indeed any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a say 90% ball on an 90% length course.
Same number of shots .... but on a smaller area of land.
Might be quite nice.
atb
-
There shouldn't be much if indeed any difference in playing a 100% ball on a 100% length course to playing a say 90% ball on an 90% length course.
Same number of shots .... but on a smaller area of land.
Might be quite nice.
atb
Also, can you just imagine being close enough to those in harms way that they could actually hear someone yell fore……maybe Nicklaus and his Cayman concept was way ahead of his time!
-
A fractional increase in ball spin would do bupkis. I say this because even a 100% increase (doubling) in ball spin doesn't do as much as people seem to think. Plug in the numbers into a launch optimizer, you'll see. I think I posted pictures earlier up-thread.
People act like the Tour Balata spun like crazy off the driver. It didn't. And even if you could make a Pro V1x spin 500 RPM more, it'd result in a pretty small change in distance/curve, and also be worked around pretty quickly by the tour guys (reps, players, fitters, engineers).
I'll quote a friend who made these:
The main issue with what Phil is trying to argue here is that spin rate has very little to do with how much a ball will curve - that's governed primarily by the spin axis. More or less spin with the same spin axis will have very little effect on the measured curvature of a golf ball, because most reasonable spin axis values (ball not dramatically hooking or slicing) are 10% or less.
A modern high MOI golf ball, in relation to comparable balls from yesterday, does not just have a higher resistance to backspin. The modern ball is more resistant to all rotational forces applied to it.
In the simplest of terms, the force of the golf swing imparts two different forces on the ball, linear momentum and angular momentum. For the confines of this discussion we’ll view linear momentum as the force that propels the golf ball forward and focus much of our interest in angular momentum. Angular momentum is the rotational forces acted upon the golf ball; primarily back spin and yaw spin, with yaw spin being spin generated on a secondary axis different from backspin. Within current golf ball flight dynamics, angular momentum is typically characterized as ball spin and spin axis. Conservation of energy illustrates that as the MOI of a golf ball is decreased, the angular momentum would increase.To put it another way, a reduction of MOI will increase both the ball's spin rate and spin axis.
Presuming a flushly struck shot suggests a ball hit in the middle of the face with a square face angle, the flushed shot will exhibit minimal difference between a low MOI and high MOI golf ball. As the majority of force transfer will occur in the generation of linear momentum and a minimal amount of force transfer will generate angular momentum, in the form of backspin. With the major difference being an increased backspin rate in proportion to the MOI changes between the two balls. As the strike degrades, with the strike point moving further away from the sweet spot and/or the face angle becoming more deflected, the effects of the mishit will become exponentially magnified on the low MOI golf ball.
For decades, the MOI characteristics of the golf ball and increased potential for yaw spin was countered by the bulge and roll built into woods. This shot saving technology would utilize gear effect to counter the potential for yaw spin in a positive way and bring an errant tee shot back into play. A low MOI ball that is struck near the toe of the driver will have to conserve angular momentum, creating an increase in yaw spin, resulting in an increase in spin axis and a ball flight that will allow a ball starting right of the target line to curve back into play. As the MOI of the ball increases, the yaw spin on a toe struck shot must be lower to preserve angular momentum equally, resulting in the ball starting right and staying right during its flight. This is one characteristic that is easy to recognize when playing modern golf balls with vintage persimmons. Today you’re much more likely to hit high blocks and low pulls with persimmon vs. the toe draw and heel cut that was common 30 years ago.
For the average player, the gear effect influence on their shot was a godsend. For the best in the world, bulge & roll became a tool to use to better control the golf ball. As golf ball manufacturers began building balls with higher MOI, the need for gear effect became minimized and bulge & roll was slowly reduced. Larger flat sections of the driver face replaced the sweeping faces of vintage drivers, allowing for off center hits to still start near the players intended target line. As the ball was more resistant to rotational forces, it would develop a minimal amount of yaw spin, resulting in a more neutral spin axis.
If the MOI of the golf ball was reduced it would have a noticeable, but not overall significant, impact on flushly struck shots. But the impact of the reduced MOI of the ball would be very significant for miss hit shots. The impact of the MOI change would be magnified as the swing speed of the player is increased. As good as the touring professionals may be, even they do not flush every drive. But the modern high MOI golf ball and the design of the modern driver has allowed them to swing all out and have minimal concern for the strike position at impact. If the MOI of the ball is reduced, their demand for increased strike quality must go up. When the impact of a miss hit driver is an increase in angular momentum and a resulting change in spin axis, their control of the ball becomes diminished. The practice of “swinging for the fences”, relying on modern technology to control and manage potential miss hits will become a much riskier strategy. The implication of a bomb and gouge strategy will change as mishits travel further offline. The relationship between distance and control will begin to slide back more towards control.
I’ve spoken almost exclusively about ball hits from the tee box, while this may be the location of the largest impact, a reduction of golf ball MOI will be seen in other parts of play as well. Fliers hit from the rough is not a shot outcome we see all that often today, but with a lower MOI golf ball it becomes a much larger concern. When playing from a less than ideal lie, the uncertainty of ball spin will impact strategy, both in the possibility of catching the ball high on the face producing a flier and catching the ball cleanly producing a high spinning shot.
As the increase in angular momentum is a function of swing speed. Any changes to the MOI of a golf ball would have the smallest impact to the average slow swinging player and the greatest impact to the tour level player. Putting a maximum MOI on the ball that is closer to what was common 30 years ago would initiate a greater control variable to the tour level player. It would not directly reduce possible distance players may hit the ball but it would dramatically increase the need for near perfect strike conditions to control such shots. Player's strategies would begin to reflect their confidence level in their skill to strike the ball squarely, not just their ability to swing as fast as possible.
-
^^^^^^^^
Yes to this.
Thank you for explaining why I know from experience that the ball curves less today than it used to.
-
Ben,
Who is more likely to lose control of their ball under the reduced MOI rules you've laid out, the 5,000 Tour level players hitting the ball at 170+ ball speed? Or the 50,000 amateurs that can also generate that type of speed?
-
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.
Of course nothing was optimized by today's standards.
However, biographies of tour pros i have read indicated they did some driver switching until they found one that appeared to work best for them. An unoptimized optimization.
Perhaps i might have offered a better explanation by suggesting that the swing that worked well for the modern driver appeared to not be the best swing for the old driver. We see in your results that the same ball performed significantly different between the two drivers. Different driver COR shouldn't cause the spin difference should it? Modern technology should result in higher clubhead speed shouldn't it? Higher clubhead speed presumably should result in more spin shouldn't it? But, yet the modern driver produced less spin. Is there anything else of significance that i am overlooking?
If I remember Sam Snead's biography correctly, he hit down on the ball with the driver to reduce spin. I assume your subject made no such effort to modify his modern swing.
-
Ben,
Who is more likely to lose control of their ball under the reduced MOI rules you've laid out, the 5,000 Tour level players hitting the ball at 170+ ball speed? Or the 50,000 amateurs that can also generate that type of speed?
Don't those tour players have to learn how to better control the ball at earlier stages in their life or are they born with that high ball speed and great control? I see good players blow shots miles off line. It happens when swinging hard.
Ciao
-
Unable to resist - based on comments about spin on this thread it seems like more Spin Doctors are posting on here than work in politics! :) :) :)
atb
-
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.
Of course nothing was optimized by today's standards.
However, biographies of tour pros i have read indicated they did some driver switching until they found one that appeared to work best for them. An unoptimized optimization.
Perhaps i might have offered a better explanation by suggesting that the swing that worked well for the modern driver appeared to not be the best swing for the old driver. We see in your results that the same ball performed significantly different between the two drivers. Different driver COR shouldn't cause the spin difference should it? Modern technology should result in higher clubhead speed shouldn't it? Higher clubhead speed presumably should result in more spin shouldn't it? But, yet the modern driver produced less spin. Is there anything else of significance that i am overlooking?
If I remember Sam Snead's biography correctly, he hit down on the ball with the driver to reduce spin. I assume your subject made no such effort to modify his modern swing.
Ben sounds like he might have a better explanation than I do for that question.
I've never read anywhere about Snead trying to hit down on the driver to reduce spin.
I've read his answer to the question: 'How do you hit it low?"
"Think low"
I think Snead was a pretty instinctive player with amazing talents.
And no, Lucas was just trying to get it on the face. But I've seen Geoff Ogilvy pick up both a hickory shafted driver and a steel shafted persimmon driver, it 3 or 4 balls with them and flush it for a whole round.
-
Who is more likely to lose control of their ball under the reduced MOI rules you've laid out, the 5,000 Tour level players hitting the ball at 170+ ball speed? Or the 50,000 amateurs that can also generate that type of speed?
Considering more than 43% of PGA Tour pro's don't average 170 mph ball speed, I'd like to find out where you found 50,000 amateur players that do.
As this is not a new concept in golf, the simple answer to your question is what was the game like for the am player in the past when a lower MOI ball was standard? They couldn't go after the ball as hard. There is not harm in asking players to control their ball from the tee, especially when their fairway is 50% wider than the average PGA Tour fairway.
Perhaps i might have offered a better explanation by suggesting that the swing that worked well for the modern driver appeared to not be the best swing for the old driver. We see in your results that the same ball performed significantly different between the two drivers. Different driver COR shouldn't cause the spin difference should it? Modern technology should result in higher clubhead speed shouldn't it? Higher clubhead speed presumably should result in more spin shouldn't it? But, yet the modern driver produced less spin. Is there anything else of significance that i am overlooking?
If I remember Sam Snead's biography correctly, he hit down on the ball with the driver to reduce spin. I assume your subject made no such effort to modify his modern swing.
For the longest time the average angle of attack with a driver on the PGA Tour was around -1.5, in 2019 that number rose to -1.3 and today is probably closer to -.9. The really long players on tour have an AoA around +2, but the majority of players still use a descending or flat blow. Moving to a lower MOI golf ball, you'd expect to see the AoA numbers go back to around -1.5 as players would return to hitting down on the ball to increase their control.
Sam Snead would not have hit down on the ball to reduce spin, it would have most likely done the opposite and added spin to his drive.
-
Ben,
Your post on the golf balls MOI seemed to suggest an advantage of rolling back is that players would have to swing more controlled or risk losing control of the ball. Did I misinterpret? If so, please explain your point in all the good information provided.
The rollback conversations have focused on a couple key areas; sustainability, safety and most often design integrity/challenge.
Decreasing the MOI, as you've described the resulting challenges, would seem to make controlling the ball a challenge at higher swing speeds. Are you challenging my guestimate that there's a 10:1 ratio of amateurs with high swing speeds as top level playing professionals? Also...do you seriously feel the long hitters on Tour today swing all out? They certainly swing fast, but they also look like they have a great deal in reserve.
Your post was very informative, but does not, to me, prescribe a solution.
any guesses how much impact 3 inches additional driver length at about half the weight impact swing speed?
-
Ben,
You say AoA has gone from -1.5 to -.9. My understanding is you are referring to angle of attack. My guess is that means the path of the driver when it contacts the ball. Negative means traveling down.
My novice view is that delofts the club producing less back spin. Why would it increase spin as you say?
The novice view
-
Oh, Ben… I'm going to see a movie with my wife, but I'll have a reply for you when I get back. (Free Guy. I hope it's good.)
BTW, just curious… do you know the MOI of a Tour Balata versus a modern-day urethane covered ball? You seem to think it matters quite a bit, after all.
My novice view is that delofts the club producing less back spin. Why would it increase spin as you say?
The AoA is one piece of the spin axis puzzle. The other main one here: delivered (or dynamic) loft. If you hit down more but deliver a lot less loft, you can reduce spin. You can hit up more but deliver more loft and get more spin, too.
There are others, too: more clubhead speed = more spin, all else equal. Contact location matters. The type of ball used matters. Etc.
-
Ben,
You say AoA has gone from -1.5 to -.9. My understanding is you are referring to angle of attack. My guess is that means the path of the driver when it contacts the ball. Negative means traveling down.
My novice view is that delofts the club producing less back spin. Why would it increase spin as you say?
The novice view
Garland,
Spin is a function of the spin loft which is the difference between the dynamic loft and the angle of attack. If you google those three terms you'll find lots of articles explaining. After that you can progress from the "novice view". :)
The answer to your question is that having a negative angle of attack (of the centre of gravity of the club) does not necessarily mean the the club face is delofted. Below is a Trackman graphic that shows an example where the AoA is more negative and the dynamic loft is delofted resulting in the same spin. Of course, if the AoA is 5* negative but the dynamic loft is higher then the spin loft and spin will be higher. There are many charts showing empirical data about optimal launch conditions for any given ball speed, launch angle and spin rate.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bUhrOeP-5p8/UZKq0VB-WYI/AAAAAAAAANA/rfLTUJGkkQE/s1600/spinloft.jpg)
-
A fractional increase in ball spin would do bupkis. I say this because even a 100% increase (doubling) in ball spin doesn't do as much as people seem to think. Plug in the numbers into a launch optimizer, you'll see. I think I posted pictures earlier up-thread.
People act like the Tour Balata spun like crazy off the driver. It didn't. And even if you could make a Pro V1x spin 500 RPM more, it'd result in a pretty small change in distance/curve, and also be worked around pretty quickly by the tour guys (reps, players, fitters, engineers).
I'll quote a friend who made these:
The main issue with what Phil is trying to argue here is that spin rate has very little to do with how much a ball will curve - that's governed primarily by the spin axis. More or less spin with the same spin axis will have very little effect on the measured curvature of a golf ball, because most reasonable spin axis values (ball not dramatically hooking or slicing) are 10% or less.
A modern high MOI golf ball, in relation to comparable balls from yesterday, does not just have a higher resistance to backspin. The modern ball is more resistant to all rotational forces applied to it.
Could you point us to some empirical data about the MOI of modern and Balata balls. There's plenty of discussion on the MOI of clubs but few actual numbers. There is zero information that I can find on MOI of balls.
In the simplest of terms, the force of the golf swing imparts two different forces on the ball, linear momentum and angular momentum. For the confines of this discussion we’ll view linear momentum as the force that propels the golf ball forward and focus much of our interest in angular momentum. Angular momentum is the rotational forces acted upon the golf ball; primarily back spin and yaw spin, with yaw spin being spin generated on a secondary axis different from backspin. Within current golf ball flight dynamics, angular momentum is typically characterized as ball spin and spin axis. Conservation of energy illustrates that as the MOI of a golf ball is decreased, the angular momentum would increase.To put it another way, a reduction of MOI will increase both the ball's spin rate and spin axis.
Introducing all these scientific physics terms - forces, linear momentum, angular momentum, yaw spin, secondary axis, conservation of energy - serves only to confuse and are not entirely correctly used. Your last sentence would have sufficed, except that the second part is incorrect - reducing the MOI would not necessarily increase the "spin axis" whatever you intended that to mean. The initial spin axis tilt is a function of the strike on the ball regardless of MOI.
Presuming a flushly struck shot suggests a ball hit in the middle of the face with a square face angle, the flushed shot will exhibit minimal difference between a low MOI and high MOI golf ball. As the majority of force transfer will occur in the generation of linear momentum and a minimal amount of force transfer will generate angular momentum, in the form of backspin. With the major difference being an increased backspin rate in proportion to the MOI changes between the two balls. As the strike degrades, with the strike point moving further away from the sweet spot and/or the face angle becoming more deflected, the effects of the mishit will become exponentially magnified on the low MOI golf ball.
A strike of the clubface on the ball will impart velocity, launch angle, spin and a spin tilt axis to the ball. Where the ball is hit on the face will affect all of those. The only impact that the ball MOI would have is on the initial spin rate - lower MOI, higher spin rate; high MOI, lower spin rate. Do you have any empirical evidence of the relationship between ball MOI and spin rate under any condition? In any event, to say that a mishit would be "exponentially magnified" is silly if you understand what exponential means mathematically.
For decades, the MOI characteristics of the golf ball and increased potential for yaw spin was countered by the bulge and roll built into woods. This shot saving technology would utilize gear effect to counter the potential for yaw spin in a positive way and bring an errant tee shot back into play. A low MOI ball that is struck near the toe of the driver will have to conserve angular momentum, creating an increase in yaw spin, resulting in an increase in spin axis and a ball flight that will allow a ball starting right of the target line to curve back into play. As the MOI of the ball increases, the yaw spin on a toe struck shot must be lower to preserve angular momentum equally, resulting in the ball starting right and staying right during its flight. This is one characteristic that is easy to recognize when playing modern golf balls with vintage persimmons. Today you’re much more likely to hit high blocks and low pulls with persimmon vs. the toe draw and heel cut that was common 30 years ago.
The gear effect of bulge and roll on woods would be impacted by differences in ball MOI but I see no empirical evidence of how much of a difference there would be.
For the average player, the gear effect influence on their shot was a godsend. For the best in the world, bulge & roll became a tool to use to better control the golf ball. As golf ball manufacturers began building balls with higher MOI, the need for gear effect became minimized and bulge & roll was slowly reduced. Larger flat sections of the driver face replaced the sweeping faces of vintage drivers, allowing for off center hits to still start near the players intended target line. As the ball was more resistant to rotational forces, it would develop a minimal amount of yaw spin, resulting in a more neutral spin axis.
If the MOI of the golf ball was reduced it would have a noticeable, but not overall significant, impact on flushly struck shots. But the impact of the reduced MOI of the ball would be very significant for miss hit shots. The impact of the MOI change would be magnified as the swing speed of the player is increased. As good as the touring professionals may be, even they do not flush every drive. But the modern high MOI golf ball and the design of the modern driver has allowed them to swing all out and have minimal concern for the strike position at impact. If the MOI of the ball is reduced, their demand for increased strike quality must go up. When the impact of a miss hit driver is an increase in angular momentum and a resulting change in spin axis, their control of the ball becomes diminished. The practice of “swinging for the fences”, relying on modern technology to control and manage potential miss hits will become a much riskier strategy. The implication of a bomb and gouge strategy will change as mishits travel further offline. The relationship between distance and control will begin to slide back more towards control.
This seems like a very convoluted way to get elite players to roll back their distance.
It would be much easier to just mandate a slightly lighter or a slightly larger ball. Easy to mandate and easy to enforce.
I’ve spoken almost exclusively about ball hits from the tee box, while this may be the location of the largest impact, a reduction of golf ball MOI will be seen in other parts of play as well. Fliers hit from the rough is not a shot outcome we see all that often today, but with a lower MOI golf ball it becomes a much larger concern. When playing from a less than ideal lie, the uncertainty of ball spin will impact strategy, both in the possibility of catching the ball high on the face producing a flier and catching the ball cleanly producing a high spinning shot.
There are different kinds of fliers depending on the rough and the point of contact and how much grass is between the face and the ball. Decreasing the MOI might have some impact but who knows how much and whether it would be good or bad on any given shot.
As the increase in angular momentum is a function of swing speed. Any changes to the MOI of a golf ball would have the smallest impact to the average slow swinging player and the greatest impact to the tour level player. Putting a maximum MOI on the ball that is closer to what was common 30 years ago would initiate a greater control variable to the tour level player. It would not directly reduce possible distance players may hit the ball but it would dramatically increase the need for near perfect strike conditions to control such shots. Player's strategies would begin to reflect their confidence level in their skill to strike the ball squarely, not just their ability to swing as fast as possible.
Again, this seems a very complicated way to maybe reduce distance - a bigger or lighter ball would be much easier.
-
I'm back. Free Guy was quite good. Not quite what I thought it would be. I recommend it (for seeing once).
What follows is my friend's response. Before I get to that… I'd like to thank Bryan Izatt for his post, which does a pretty good job of highlighting some of the things you… didn't get right.
The simplest is is that you said "To put it another way, a reduction of MOI will increase both the ball's spin rate and spin axis." and that's wrong: it doesn't "increase the spin axis." Or tilt it any more, or whatever. The ball just spins: it doesn't differentiate between the X and Y axis.
The rest of the text in this post is his (except the quoted parts, obviously).
A modern high MOI golf ball, in relation to comparable balls from yesterday, does not just have a higher resistance to backspin. The modern ball is more resistant to all rotational forces applied to it.
This is a good start, you recognize that both backspin and sidespin will be proportionately increased.
Conservation of energy illustrates that as the MOI of a golf ball is decreased, the angular momentum would increase.
This is where you start to go wrong - angular momentum is conserved in all cases. An identical strike will result in a golf ball with identical angular momentum at impact, no matter what kind of golf ball you're using. The total impulse imparted onto the golf ball, which equates to the total change in momentum, is the same because the force applied by the golf club and the elasticity of the golf ball are unchanged.
DeltaP (change in momentum, or impulse) = F (applied force) * T (time). The force from the golf club is the same, because the strikes are identical since we are not testing that variable. The duration of impact is the same, because elasticity of the golf ball is not the variable we are testing. The only variable we are changing here is the moment of inertia of the golf ball, and that does not have any effect on the total momentum (angular or linear) imparted upon the golf ball.
L (angular momentum) = I (moment of inertia) * w (angular velocity). Angular momentum is constant, as described above. Moment of inertia is reduced, which means that the angular velocity must be increased resulting in a higher spinrate at impact.
To put it another way, a reduction of MOI will increase both the ball's spin rate and spin axis.
This is where you go off the deep end, reducing the MOI of a golf ball will have no effect on the spin axis because the increase in both backspin and sidespin are proportionate. Let's go back to fundamental physics here to show exactly why:
A sphere with a uniform relationship between density and radius, which a golf ball is, has the same moment of inertia for all possible axis of rotation. This means that the vertical axis of rotation (sidespin) and the horizontal axis of rotation (backspin) have the same moment of inertia. The total angular momentum is equal to the sum of angular momentum along these two axis
L = I * ⍵
LTotal = LSidespin + LBackspin
(IGolf Ball * ⍵Total) = (IGolf Ball * ⍵Sidespin)+ (IGolf Ball * ⍵Backspin)
⍵Total = ⍵Sidespin + ⍵Backspin
⍵Sidespin = Δ LSidespin / IGolf Ball = (FSidespin * T ) / IGolf Ball
⍵Backspin = Δ LBackspin / IGolf Ball = (FBackspin * T ) / IGolf Ball
All forces and times are constant - Because we're comparing identical strikes, only changed variable is Moment of Inertia
From here it's easy to see that any change to the golf ball's moment of inertia (IGolf Ball) will have a proportionate effect on both sidespin and backspin. Halving the moment of inertia will double the backspin, and also double the sidespin.
Spin axis = ArcSin( |⍵Sidespin| / |⍵Backspin| )
Spin axis = ArcSin{ [ (FSidespin * T ) / IGolf Ball] / [ (FBackspin * T ) / IGolf Ball] }
Spin axis = ArcSin{ [ (FSidespin * T ) / IGolf Ball] / [ (FBackspin * T ) / IGolf Ball] }
Spin axis = ArcSin{ (FSidespin * T ) / (FBackspin * T ) }
All forces and times are constant - Because we're comparing identical strikes, only changed variable is Moment of Inertia
The spin axis is based off the angular speed of both backspin and sidespin, with (Sidespin/Backspin) equal to the Sine of the spin axis' angle. If you double both the sidespin and the backspin, by halving the moment of inertia, the spin axis will remain unchanged.
As you can clearly see, changing the moment of inertia does not change either the total angular momentum (Force and impact duration are kept constant) nor does it change the spin axis. Literally everything you have written is debunked by the most basic of kinematics taught to freshmen collegiate students and high schoolers around the globe.
For good measure, here are some excellent illustrations from the FlightScope simulator showing exactly how little difference even a monumental increase in spinrate (2500 RPM to 5500 RPM) would have for professional golfers with 180mph ballspeed and a 5 degree spin axis:
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/NQuYj6Wl/128330a6-66bc-4336-a571-7132b4872b3c.jpg?v=b00455b8027aaa7468d96cc27346ec3e)
(https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/KouJ1P9N/8d31eedf-497e-4427-8d00-4dcfc213e8f4.jpg?v=dec35e454b3c81597aa256b4c51d754d)
Not only are you wrong about what measured values would be different by changing the moment of inertia, you're wrong about what the effects of a monumental difference in spinrate would even look like. You can double the spinrate off the tee and you will barely see any difference in curvature, because magnitude of curvature is primarily dictated by spin axis - not spin rate.
-
In the early 2000's, right around and shortly after the release of the Pro V1, Titleist filed multiple patents for High MOI golf balls.
In the patent Golf ball having a high moment of inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6939249B2/en), they wrote:
- "When a club head strikes a ball, an unintentional side spin is often imparted to the ball, which sends the ball off its intended course. The side spin reduces the player's control over the ball, as well as the distance the ball will travel. A golf ball that spins less tends not to drift off-line erratically if the shot is not hit squarely off the club face. The low spin ball will not cure the hook or the slice, but will reduce the adverse effects of the side spin."
- "...employ selective variation of the ball's moment of inertia to create a progressive performance ball which exhibits low spin when struck by the driver, and high spin when struck with the wedge."]
- "The present invention is directed to a golf ball with a controlled moment of inertia".
In the patent Golf ball having a high moment of inertia and low driver spin rate (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6743123B2/en), they wrote:
- "In accordance to one aspect of the invention, ball 20 is a high moment of inertia ball comprising a low specific gravity inner core... Ball 20, therefore, advantageously has a high moment of rotational inertia and low initial spin rates to reduce slicing and hooking when hit with a driver club."
The Pro V1, the ball that started the entire distance revolution, was specifically design to be a high MOI ball. Titleist literally patented that concept in order to allow driver shots to spin less and fly straighter and further.
Everyone who plays golf knows that the Pro V1 was longer and straighter than the Professional and Tour Balata. Probably everyone on this blog saw it and experienced it with their own hands and eyes. Everyone knows that this ball changed everything. Titleist says, the Pro V1 does what it does because it has a high MOI.
Per Titleist, limit the MOI on a golf ball, and you immediately get shorter drives that drift off line more "erratically".
-
In the early 2000's, right around and shortly after the release of the Pro V1, Titleist filed multiple patents for High MOI golf balls.
In the patient Golf ball having a high moment of inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6939249B2/en), they wrote:
- "When a club head strikes a ball, an unintentional side spin is often imparted to the ball, which sends the ball off its intended course. The side spin reduces the player's control over the ball, as well as the distance the ball will travel. A golf ball that spins less tends not to drift off-line erratically if the shot is not hit squarely off the club face. The low spin ball will not cure the hook or the slice, but will reduce the adverse effects of the side spin."
- "...employ selective variation of the ball's moment of inertia to create a progressive performance ball which exhibits low spin when struck by the driver, and high spin when struck with the wedge."]
- "The present invention is directed to a golf ball with a controlled moment of inertia".
In the patient Golf ball having a high moment of inertia and low driver spin rate (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6743123B2/en), they wrote:
- "In accordance to one aspect of the invention, ball 20 is a high moment of inertia ball comprising a low specific gravity inner core... Ball 20, therefore, advantageously has a high moment of rotational inertia and low initial spin rates to reduce slicing and hooking when hit with a driver club."
The Pro V1, the ball that started the entire distance revolution, was specifically design to be a high MOI ball. Titleist literally patented that concept in order to allow driver shots to spin less and fly straighter and further.
Everyone who plays golf knows that the Pro V1 was longer and straighter than the Professional and Tour Balata. Probably everyone on this blog saw it and experienced it with their own hands and eyes. Everyone knows that this ball changed everything. Titleist says, the Pro V1 does what it does because it has a high MOI.
Per Titleist, limit the MOI on a golf ball, and you immediately get shorter drives that drift off line more "erratically".
Ben,
This is impressive science AND research; thank you. Forgive me in advance for the lack of science in what I'm about to write. And I agree that the ProV1 changed everything; long, durable, and enough spin off irons.
But aren't we conflating two different issues here? The ProV1 changed distance for pros and elite ams, without question, by giving them access to what amounted to a Pinnacle ball that would still spin off irons. The distance FOR THEM, though, came from the solid core, moreso than the lack of spin off the driver, didn't it? They opted for balata over surlyn because they needed spin, and they could control that spin off the driver just fine. I just don't think there is much real world reason, at least in MY experience, to believe that a ball that spins more, or has a lower MOI, is going to go offline more for elite players and cause them not to swing as hard; they're better than that.
The material you've cited above applies much more to me than it does to them, I think, because elite golfers just don't hit curve balls like I do. There is a mountain of data about this, compiled mostly by Mark Broadie and discussed here many times. When a pro hits a drive into the next county over, it tends to be the vector that the ball starts on moreso than a 30 yard hook or slice. They still flush it, for the most part; they just flushed it on the wrong line. (It would be interesting to know the spin rates of Tour shots in and out of the fairway off the tee, but I doubt that data exists.
There is NO question that the ProV1x balls that I use have really reduced the hook that I used to fight. But people that aren't great ball strikers just don't become pros anyway (or even elite amateurs, for that matter) and as Broadie has proven, the same skill set that allows a player to hit the ball FAR also determines that typically they will hit the ball STRAIGHT. There's really no other way to hit the ball far except to square up the club at impact, right? That doesn't mean it can't be offline, but it's not because of spin; it's because it STARTS offline.
It seems to me that what you are proposing would "penalize" less skilled and recreational players who DO hit curveballs, without having the desired impact on elite players. I apologize if I've misunderstood the science.
-
The distance FOR THEM, though, came from the solid core, moreso than the lack of spin off the driver, didn't it?
The solid core and spin rate is inherently linked through the change in the balls MOI. That is one component that the Titleist patents speak to in great detail. How the change ball composition adjusted the MOI and the impact that MOI change has on launch conditions
They opted for balata over surlyn because they needed spin, and they could control that spin off the driver just fine.
Another point reference in the Titleist data, The ball cover material properties have a much greater connection to feel of the ball vs. direct spin performance.
I just don't think there is much real world reason, at least in MY experience, to believe that a ball that spins more, or has a lower MOI, is going to go offline more for elite players and cause them not to swing as hard; they're better than that.
This is true for perfectly struck shots, but even missing the center of the face by just a few dimples can produce a significant change in spin axis.
When a pro hits a drive into the next county over, it tends to be the vector that the ball starts on moreso than a 30 yard hook or slice.
This would be heavily influenced by the MOI of the ball. The higher the MOI, the more the ball will hold the starting line regardless strike conditions at impact.
It seems to me that what you are proposing would "penalize" less skilled and recreational players who DO hit curveballs, without having the desired impact on elite players. I apologize if I've misunderstood the science.
The magnitude of influence would relate to the swing speed of the player. In the Titleist patent Golf ball having specific spin, moment of inertia, lift, and drag relationship (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8617003B2/en), they wrote:
"An average professional can generally drive a golf ball at a speed of approximately 235 feet per second (ft/s) or 160 miles per hour (mph). Most amateur golfers, however, have a “lower swing-speed,” i.e., slower club head speed at impact compared to a professional golfer, and are able to drive the ball at a speed of about 130 mph and a distance of less than about 200 to about 240 yards. When compared to a ball hit by a high swing-speed player, a similar ball that is hit by a low swing-speed player travels along a more ballistic trajectory than the trajectory typically achieved by tour caliber players.
For example, when a player strikes a ball, a portion of the energy from the club head is transferred to the ball as ball speed, and another portion of the energy is transferred to the ball as ball spin. Players with low swing-speed will have less energy available to transfer to both ball speed and ball spin. When club speed becomes very low, the resulting ball speed can be low enough that the effect of ball spin does not significantly increase lift (FL), which, in turn, generates a low ball speed (V) and low lift (FL). Thus, the advantages of a golf ball designed to have beneficial flight properties, such as high spin and high lift, are minimized when hit by a low swing-speed player."
Titleist is saying that this ball helps the high swing speed player (the tour pro) more than the low swing speed player.
The same low effect of ball spin on lift for a slow swing speed player would also apply to horizontal gear effect for the same player.
-
Ben,
They could have added -'When a club head strikes a ball, an unintentional side spin is often imparted to the ball which sends the ball off its intended course, thus exposing faults in the strike and the player's method"
-
Ben, I must be reading the Titleist quote differently than you are. I’m reading it to mean that a very low swing speed player doesn’t transfer much energy to the ball in either ball speed or spin, which we know. I see nothing there that makes me understand why a pro would have trouble hitting a higher spin ball long AND straight.
The fact that a ball could curve more doesn’t mean it will unless it’s struck that way.
-
It’s not about what happens when the ball is struck on the screws. It’s about what the penalty for marginal misses are. The new equipment does not differentiate small misses. All pros are almost always within the small miss range. The old spiny ball did differentiate small misses. Everyone on tour drives like Norman did because the size of the sweet spot is now a quarter as opposed to a dime. Slow swing speeds don’t get impacted as much because the spin along all axes are less.
-
Ben,
Re the following quote:
"An average professional can generally drive a golf ball at a speed of approximately 235 feet per second (ft/s) or 160 miles per hour (mph). Most amateur golfers, however, have a “lower swing-speed,” i.e., slower club head speed at impact compared to a professional golfer, and are able to drive the ball at a speed of about 130 mph and a distance of less than about 200 to about 240 yards. When compared to a ball hit by a high swing-speed player, a similar ball that is hit by a low swing-speed player travels along a more ballistic trajectory than the trajectory typically achieved by tour caliber players.
For example, when a player strikes a ball, a portion of the energy from the club head is transferred to the ball as ball speed, and another portion of the energy is transferred to the ball as ball spin. Players with low swing-speed will have less energy available to transfer to both ball speed and ball spin. When club speed becomes very low, the resulting ball speed can be low enough that the effect of ball spin does not significantly increase lift (FL), which, in turn, generates a low ball speed (V) and low lift (FL). Thus, the advantages of a golf ball designed to have beneficial flight properties, such as high spin and high lift, are minimized when hit by a low swing-speed player."
.................... consider the chart below from PING. It shows that the slow swing-speed players with low ball speeds achieve maximum distance at spin rates that are the same as or below those of even elite players who can achieve 180 mph ball speeds. Mind you the slow swing-speed players need to generate a significantly higher launch angle to achieve maximum distance. It sort of indicates that the modern high MOI ball should work just as well for short players and long players alike.
Personally, at my advanced age, I fall into the Titleist "lower swing-speed" category with a ball speed just over 130 mph and distance around 200-240 yards. I can assure you that my ball flight is quite flat - not ballistic at all. In fact, I think it is silly to say that any golf shot is ballistic in trajectory. Spin of any sort create lift which flattens out a ballistic parabola. Very high spin can create an up-shooting shot. You can't believe everything you read in patent (not "patient") applications.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51442662014_ed7f27663a_b.jpg)
-
Ben,
Since you're into Titleist patents, should we fear the latest Acushnet patent approved this week - "multifaceted dimples comprising two discrete geometries including a circular perimeter and a depression or protrusion based on a polyhedral prismatoid." Will they claim it flies further? Will the USGA regulate it? Fear the polyhedral prismatoid!
-
Since many of the old time pros claimed that they dialed back their swings to keep the ball under control, I don't think it is true that the reduction of spin off the driver did not benefit their accuracy. Even as highly skilled players they were negatively affected by the side spin component.
-
...
The Pro V1, the ball that started the entire distance revolution, was specifically design to be a high MOI ball. Titleist literally patented that concept in order to allow driver shots to spin less and fly straighter and further.
...
The ProV1, the Johnny come lately to the distance "revolution", the ball that saved Tileist from becoming a minor player in ball sales.
:P
-
Bryan,
Your example makes perfect sense. Ball don't care about club path. All it sees is the static loft.
-
In the early 2000's, right around and shortly after the release of the Pro V1, Titleist filed multiple patents for High MOI golf balls.
Thank you for that. I was unaware that patent filings underwent rigorous scientific peer review. :D
This would be heavily influenced by the MOI of the ball. The higher the MOI, the more the ball will hold the starting line regardless strike conditions at impact.
You seem to be conflating the ball's linear motion with its rotational motion. Golf balls all weigh the same — a ball's linear momentum is the same as another golf ball at the same speed because balls weigh the same. The curve on the ball is simply a matter of the aerodynamics and spin loss rates.
And my friend, who provided most of the science you ignored, wanted me to add that he had a good chuckle at your avoidance. :)
-
I see nothing there that makes me understand why a pro would have trouble hitting a higher spin ball long AND straight.
The composition of the golf ball has no defense against a perfect strike. Nor should it. A player that is able to flush the golf ball should gain every advantage possible.
PGA Tour pros are very, very good, but they are not perfect. On average they miss 40% of their fairways and each missed fairway is nearly 10 yards into the rough. What would happen if during the 6 times a round they miss the fairway, they didn't just miss by 10 yards, but missed it by 20-25 yards?
Tour players don't have the luxury of selecting which fairways they miss. Instead they have uncertainty. Imagine, along with the uncertainty of a 40% miss rate, they're also facing a miss of 20+ yards into the rough and beyond.
Can they be as aggressive all the time or will they need to play more strategic tee shots more frequently, pulling architecture back into the equation. Hazards become much more important. Bomb and Gauge will fade because the bombs will be more likely to blow up in their face.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/SH9mxetFdSnr4BHMKU7SGaHHhfkT1JOnev270rCL2n0GoDp0d4zSbBsMvwycndRg34cHcL460uT-oTQBqmnJHOfjD1qp5aJv9gCqJkJeCajkXmQ0CW4CgFpUSgf-jPBATCYTBJwMtzc=w2400)
Brian,
The golf equipment industry for years has known that maximum distance is the result of high launch and low spin. Remember the TaylorMade 17 campaign. The low swing speed player has always produced low spin in relation to high swing speed players and has needed assistance to generate higher launch conditions. The high swing speed player had historically produced high spin, thus the introduction of the high MOI golf ball to assist in reducing their ball spin.
When a low MOI ball is compared to a high MOI ball hit by a high swing speed player, a similar ball that is hit by a low swing speed player will experience a smaller spin rate change than the spin rate change experienced by tour caliber players.
For example, using the Ping chart and near fixed launch angle of 13.9*, we can see that as the player's ball speed increases their optimal spin rate must decrease. As high swing speed players inherently produce more spin than low swing speed players, how would they decrease their spin rate while preserving launch angle? They would need a higher MOI golf ball.
-
Erik,
I’m not sure if you’re joking about the patent peer review process. Patents go through a rigorous review with multiple participants and stakeholders until approval. They don’t let you patent something that is not provable and accurate.
The important part of all of this is a miss hit will travel more offline with a lower MOI, higher spinning, golf ball. Titleist’s patent’s state this. Anyone with a deep experience playing golf has encountered this. Even flight calculators state this.
Your 5* spin axis example is not a miss hit, It is a small cut that is representative of the preferred driver flight of many players on tour. It is not a miss hit.
A miss hit that produces a 20* spin axis will move the ball offline ~30% more at 5500 rpm than at 2500 rpm. That is very substantial.
This isn’t a question about a flushed shot. This is about how the ball turns on a miss hit. A lower MOI golf ball will turn more on a miss hit shot.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Oo8H1JJwYUvE9zSBBjRRZ2q1DQ-N9TI9SoOWd2eK4Ue7NKAi-2KDqTHLnzy3fHl4TApmZHsgsfz6DVVEFAp97kna6VCD055KBCD-NLd2D9L_vlC2qAeqVqIJJP--JwgU2VhHXGqVrIY=w2400)
I didn’t ignore your friend’s science, I provided patents containing physics from the leading golf ball experts in the world.
-
I’m not sure if you’re joking about the patent peer review process. Patents go through a rigorous review with multiple participants and stakeholders until approval. They don’t let you patent something that is not provable and accurate.
The fact is they don't rigorously test the science therein. You're patently wrong (see what I did there? :) ) about the science here, which is why you completely ducked any discussion of it. And you doubled down with your "hold the starting line" stuff.
The important part of all of this is a miss hit will travel more offline with a lower MOI, higher spinning, golf ball. Titleist’s patent’s state this.
Do you believe everything you read in a patent application? Why, it must be true! No?
Anyone with a deep experience playing golf has encountered this. Even flight calculators state this.
Please cite more anecdata when actual science is available.
A miss hit that produces a 20* spin axis will move the ball offline ~30% more at 5500 rpm than at 2500 rpm. That is very substantial.
I don't agree that a 30% difference at more than double the spin is "substantial." It's not nothing, but 5500 RPM is getting pretty ridiculous. And if it's a mis-hit, the ball speed will take a hit, too, so the ball won't fly as far and thus won't go as far offline as a ball hit flush with the same spin axis, spin rate, and a higher ball speed.
This isn’t a question about a flushed shot. This is about how the ball turns on a miss hit. A lower MOI golf ball will turn more on a miss hit shot.
PGA Tour players don't mis-hit the ball all that often. You can't keep saying "anyone who ever played with balata knows this" because balata went out just as bigger headed drivers, etc. came into play, too. It's not a direct comparison. It's anecdotal.
I didn’t ignore your friend’s science, I provided patents containing physics from the leading golf ball experts in the world.
Again, patent applications aren't "science." They're not rigorously peer reviewed by interested parties in that specific field. They just check the design or feature to make sure it hasn't been patented before and that it's clearly defined. My friend has his name on some patents regarding the use of something that is literally physically impossible, but the lawyers wanted patented "just in case" somebody else got "close enough" to the use cases.
Tesla just patented laser beams as windshield wipers. You can patent anything regardless of whether it actually works or is even feasible. Patent application reviewers are often engineers, but they're not paid enough to "prove" or "disprove" if it works, only to check to see if it's been patented before.
Furthermore, you've yet to tell us what the MOI of a balata ball is versus a modern ball. Solid golf balls existed back then, too: Pinnacles, etc. And amateurs still managed to hit some awfully bad slices with them, too. Just as they continue to hit them with the Pro V1.
P.S. Those patents aren't even for a "high MOI golf ball." That's a different patent. Those patents are for a vague "combination" of "spin rate, lift coefficient, drag coefficients, and optionally moment of intertia:" Ball companies filed patents for all kinds of stuff back then, so they could sue Kirkland and KickX and other companies for vague infringements, and force settlements. Callaway and Titleist were in lawsuits, TaylorMade was in a few, etc.
-
Here is an interesting looking academic paper on racquet technology in tennis and how it affected different skills. I haven't read it, but I would guess there are strong parallels to golf. Below is the abstract.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537121000865
Technological innovation can raise the returns to some skills while making others less valuable or even obsolete. We study the effects of such skill-altering technological change in the context of men’s professional tennis, which was unexpectedly transformed by the invention of composite racquets during the late 1970s. We explore the consequences of this innovation on player productivity, entry, and exit. We find that young players benefited at the expense of older players and that the disruptive effects of the new racquets persisted over two to four generations.
-
If increase the spin of the ball would do "bupkis", are you suggesting that the spin and control of balls 25 years ago has been blown out of proportion, or has the game overcome the negative effects of those balls?
A fractional increase in ball spin would do bupkis. I say this because even a 100% increase (doubling) in ball spin doesn't do as much as people seem to think. Plug in the numbers into a launch optimizer, you'll see. I think I posted pictures earlier up-thread.
People act like the Tour Balata spun like crazy off the driver. It didn't. And even if you could make a Pro V1x spin 500 RPM more, it'd result in a pretty small change in distance/curve, and also be worked around pretty quickly by the tour guys (reps, players, fitters, engineers).
I'll quote a friend who made these:
The main issue with what Phil is trying to argue here is that spin rate has very little to do with how much a ball will curve - that's governed primarily by the spin axis. More or less spin with the same spin axis will have very little effect on the measured curvature of a golf ball, because most reasonable spin axis values (ball not dramatically hooking or slicing) are 10% or less. Going from 2500 RPM to 5500 RPM, which is MASSIVE on a tee shot, will produce the following curvatures with a 5% spin axis and PGA Tour-level ball speeds (180 MPH):
(https://thesandtrap.com/uploads/monthly_2021_09/1984850614_CurveDifference.thumb.JPG.73447e434a821ef9569e29bc930ff661.JPG)
(https://thesandtrap.com/uploads/monthly_2021_09/649055366_5500RPMspinrate.thumb.JPG.c3b9216763d6d07dfdc28398cb35c8d4.JPG)
The difference is so tiny you have to zoom in REALLY close to even see the grey line that shows the path of the 2500 RPM tee shot, because they both curved very nearly the same distance off line.
Phil's comments about ball spin are uninformed.
Erik,
My first question is where did Flightscope get a ball that spins 5500 rpm off of driver when launched at 12 degrees to empirically verify that the results shown above have any relation to reality?
My second question is what is the point of the simulation? Phil talked about getting more side spin, but the simulation above shows only one value of side spin. How does that remotely address what Phil talked about?
-
My first question is where did Flightscope get a ball that spins 5500 rpm off of driver when launched at 12 degrees to empirically verify that the results shown above have any relation to reality?
Why don't you ask them? I'm pretty sure they can tell you, empirically and otherwise, where they got that information.
My second question is what is the point of the simulation? Phil talked about getting more side spin, but the simulation above shows only one value of side spin. How does that remotely address what Phil talked about?
You can't just "increase sidespin." Phil was talking out of his ass. The spin axis remains generally consistent — you can increase spin, but that increases backspin and sidespin.
And maybe you misread the graphic: that's just the same shot from two angles, with the other line (not the yellow one) being the 2500 RPM shot. So you can see that it's not like the ball curves over 100% farther right because it has 5500 spin instead of 2500 spin. The graphic is the same two shots, with the "data" for the second shot at 5500 shown.
The point is that just mandating an "increase to spin" doesn't accomplish nearly what many seem to think it does.
-
The fact is they don't rigorously test the science therein. You're patently wrong (see what I did there? :) ) about the science here, which is why you completely ducked any discussion of it.
The majority of the audience on this board is not interested in discussing the pure physics of a golf ball’s MOI. Devolving this discussion fully into that realm wouldn’t have been beneficial for anyone. The fact that this discussion has garnered so little response from other parties should be sufficient evidence for you to understand that. So rather than conduct a discussion that would have been ignored by 99% of participants and viewers, I went to a source that is widely respected among the golf community and can be better understood by everyone reading here.
I don't agree that a 30% difference at more than double the spin is "substantial." It's not nothing, but 5500 RPM is getting pretty ridiculous. And if it's a mis-hit, the ball speed will take a hit, too, so the ball won't fly as far and thus won't go as far offline as a ball hit flush with the same spin axis, spin rate, and a higher ball speed.
5,500 rpm originated with you in Reply #472. You used that number for one of your simulations, why did you use it if you think it’s ridiculous? Spin rates on the PGA Tour with wound balata balls were approximately 4,000 rpm, 60% more than the tour rate today.
PGA Tour players don't mis-hit the ball all that often.
What are you defining as a PGA Tour level miss hit and what is the frequency of that shot?
PGA Tour pros miss 40% of their fairways, and their average miss is 10 yards off of the fairway. The miss fairway percentage and magnitude of their miss fairway average on the PGA Tour would suggest they miss more than enough shots that negative ball flight characteristics on a miss hit would be a concern to a PGA Tour level professional.
P.S. Those patents aren't even for a "high MOI golf ball."
I wonder if you even looked at the patents I posted or if you just refuted them right away because they don’t match with your bias. The title of the patents I posted in Reply #540 are “Golf ball having a high moment of inertia” and “Golf ball having a high moment of inertia and low driver spin rate”. It’s all there, all the science, math, and industry expertise you need. A ball with a higher MOI flies farther and straighter. As you believe that these patents have not gone through the level of peer review required to affirm or disprove their finding, I encourage you to fulfill that role. Please explain where Titleist’s physics has gone wrong and how their calculations are incorrect.
-
Could you point us to some empirical data about the MOI of modern and Balata balls. There's plenty of discussion on the MOI of clubs but few actual numbers. There is zero information that I can find on MOI of balls.
“the moment of inertia for a 1.62 oz and 1.68 inch golf ball with evenly distributed weight through any diameter is 0.4572 oz·inch2. Hence, moments of inertia higher than about 0.46 oz·inch2 would be considered as a high moment of inertia ball.”
~(Golf ball having a high moment of inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6939249B2/en)) Acushnet Co. / Titleist
Old two piece balls would have had MOI’s close even distribution. This Dunlop / Maxfli / TaylorMade patent compares their high MOI wound ball to two piece balls in 2001. (Golf ball with high specific gravity threads (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030027664A1/en)) They show the 2 piece balls at 12.5 g in2, which is 0.44 oz in2.
The Titleist Tour Balata was calculated as having a MOI of between 0.407-0.412 oz in2, with the variance most likely the result of a difference between the 90 and 100 compression balls. (Golf Ball (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6599203B1/en)) Top Flight Golf Co. / Callaway Golf Co.
In the same Titleist patent listed above, they state a MOI above 0.575 oz in2 was ideal.
“The present invention is also preferably directed to a ball comprising a core, an intermediate layer and a cover wherein the weight or mass of the ball is allocated outwardly to form a high moment of inertia and wherein the cover is made from a soft material having a hardness of 65 (shore D) or less. The moment of inertia of the ball is preferably greater than 0.46 oz·inch2, more preferably 0.50 oz·inch2, and most preferably 0.575 oz·inch2. Similar to the embodiment discussed above, the intermediate layer may comprise a non-continuous layer having a high specific gravity. It may also comprise a thin dense layer and/or a second non-continuous layer. The core preferably has a low specific gravity and is preferably foamed. The specific gravities, locations, thicknesses, hardness and surface areas discussed above relating to the individual layers of the inventive golf ball are equally applicable to this embodiment.” ~(Golf ball having a high moment of inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6939249B2/en)) Acushnet Co. / Titleist
Interestingly, Titleist discussed in the patent how to make a ball with .6898 oz in2 MOI.
If we take Titleist’s 0.575 oz in2 preferable number vs a two piece ball, we see it was 30% higher. Compared to a Tour Balata, the difference is now 40% higher.
As this patent is more than 15 years old, If the 0.6898 oz in2 was turned into a ball then we are starting to push towards these balls having twice the MOI of wound liquid filled balls!
-
After a brief search I turned up the following list of patents that all discuss the impact ball MOI has on spin and control. It’s clear the entire golf industry has been developing and designing golf balls with this high MOI concept for decades.
Titleist:
- Golf Ball Having a High Moment of Inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6939249B2/en)
- Golf Ball Having a High Moment of Interia and Low Driver Spin Rate (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6743123B2/en)
- Golf Ball Having Specific Spin, Moment of Inertia, Lift, and Drag Relationship (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8617003B2/en)
- Golf Ball and a Method For Controlling the Spin Rate of Same (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6953403B2/en)
- Perimeter Weighted Golf Ball (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6908402B2/en)
- Variable Moment of Inertia Golf Ball (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8915799B2/en)
- Foam-Core Golf Balls (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9056226B2/en)
Nike:
- Golf Ball Having Increased Moment of Inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8529375B2/en)
Callaway / Spalding:
- Low Spin Golf Ball Comprising a Mantle Having a Hollow Interior (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6120393A/en)
- Low Spin Golf Ball Comprising a Mantle with Cellular or Liquid Core (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6193618B1/en)
- Perimeter Weighted Multi-Layer Golf Ball (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20010019969A1/en)
- Low Spin Golf Ball Utilizing Perimeter Weighting (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6261193B1/en)
- A Multilayer Golf Ball Having an Increased Moment of Inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2357704A/en)
- Golf Ball Having a Controlled Variable Moment of Inertia and Method of Making Same (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6991561B2/en)
- Golf Ball (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6599203B1/en)
TaylorMade / Dunlop:
- Golf Ball with High Specific Gravity Threads (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030027664A1/en)
Bridgestone:
- Wound Golf Ball (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5993968A/en)
This is not a new concept that has been in the works for the past few years. No, the golf industry has been working on new ways to increase the MOI of their golf balls for nearly 30 years. Every patent describes how a higher MOI helps the golf ball flight farther and straighter and how that benefit is magnified as the ball speed goes up.
While not the first solid core performance ball to hit the market, being predated by both the Strata and Nike, The Pro V1 completely changed the market. But when the Pro V1 came out Titleist did not publicly discuss the change in the balls MOI and how that would impact your play, they pointed out the change in construction between a wound and solid core ball, but said the two complimented each other, not that the Pro V1 would replace the Balata, Professional, or Prestige.
From the first press release in October 2000 and onward they spoke of the ball in 2 ways: “large solid core, multi-component construction and high performance urethane elastomer cover technology.” and “Drop and Stop® performance” While the first line was more technical and more informative than the second, my guess is you remember the second more than the first. Knowing the majority of the golf world wouldn’t understand the science behind the change they left most of it out and distilled the value of the new ball into longer distance off of the tee and Drop and Stop® performance around the greens.
If a new USGA rule was put into place that reduced the MOI of the golf ball closer to the 0.46 oz in2 mark, the golf ball manufacturers already know how to build that ball. They know that the impact of that change will be greatest the higher the ball speed and they know the majority of players will see little difference in their ball’s performance.
-
The majority of the audience on this board is not interested in discussing the pure physics of a golf ball’s MOI. Devolving this discussion fully into that realm wouldn’t have been beneficial for anyone. The fact that this discussion has garnered so little response from other parties should be sufficient evidence for you to understand that. So rather than conduct a discussion that would have been ignored by 99% of participants and viewers, I went to a source that is widely respected among the golf community and can be better understood by everyone reading here.
So, let me get this straight…
- You start off by writing that to me for continuing to post about a topic that "benefits nobody" and has "garnered so little response" that there should be "sufficient evidence for {me} to understand that…"
- You follow that up with three more posts that ignore the basic science and basic points I've made earlier.
I'll make only a few brief points. As for explaining the science, scroll up. We did that already.
- Patent applications are intentionally broad, sometimes literally physically impossible, and not reviewed in any way that could be described as "rigorously" except perhaps and occasionally to make sure there isn't a conflict with another application. Patent applications are not hard science. I suspect you know this, deep down…
- The hard science shows that more than doubling the spin rate of a ball by more than halving the MOI of the ball and keeping other launch conditions the same (that is to say "unoptimized for the new spin rate") results in a relatively small change. Hence why I chose to more than double the spin rate from 2500 to 5500, a "ridiculous" amount of spin… that resulted in a relatively small change to the ball's curvature and distance loss.
You don't understand the science, you get on my case about continuing the discussion right before you make three more posts about it in which you continue to over-value patent applications of all things…
And all I've really been trying to say is that I don't think that "make the ball spin more" is a great way to go if you wanted to "rollback" something here. I think people tend to over-estimate:
- How much spin changes a ball's flight. It's much more about the spin axis. And changing the MOI of a ball doesn't change the spin axis.
- How quickly engineers, players, etc. could drastically reduce a spin number even if it was somehow mandated to increase the ball's spin by 30%, or 50%, or more.
To one specific point… yes, balata balls often spun at 3000 to 4000 RPM. But players tended to hit down a bit with the driver, and that was before we knew as much as we know now about optimized launch conditions. And even if you could make a ball spin at 4000 and somehow prevent engineers, etc. from working around it, that would only about half as much to change the distance and "curve" of the 2500 -> 5500 RPM change I've shown.
From the first press release in October 2000 and onward they spoke of the ball in 2 ways: “large solid core, multi-component construction and high performance urethane elastomer cover technology.” and “Drop and Stop® performance”
In other words, they put a soft cover on a Pinnacle (solid) core. That was the breakthrough in the Pro V1, the Strata, the Rule 35 ball, etc. It spun off the wedges without spinning quite so much off the driver. They already knew how to make a low-spinning ball. The Pinnacle was legal forever. They didn't know how to get the short-game spin that the game's best wanted (which is why they kept playing balata when they could have played a Pinnacle), until they found the urethane cover.
They know that the impact of that change will be greatest the higher the ball speed and they know the majority of players will see little difference in their ball’s performance.
Including the top players in the game. Making a rule like that wouldn't result in anything close to the 2500 -> 5500 RPM change I've been using as a super-extreme example. So, as I've been saying, this would be a lousy way of achieving what y'all seem to want to achieve.
-
My first question is where did Flightscope get a ball that spins 5500 rpm off of driver when launched at 12 degrees to empirically verify that the results shown above have any relation to reality?
Why don't you ask them? I'm pretty sure they can tell you, empirically and otherwise, where they got that information.
You are the one that brought Flightscope to the discussion. I have no information on that product. Can you not refer to their documentation, and answer the question? As to "where they got that information", which I assume means where they got their results you displayed, I trust they got the results by applying their mathematical model to calculate the results. The problem is that mathematical models are not facts, and they can become invalid when parameters go outside the experimental data from which they are derived.
My second question is what is the point of the simulation? Phil talked about getting more side spin, but the simulation above shows only one value of side spin. How does that remotely address what Phil talked about?
You can't just "increase sidespin." Phil was talking out of his ass. The spin axis remains generally consistent — you can increase spin, but that increases backspin and sidespin.
And maybe you misread the graphic: that's just the same shot from two angles, with the other line (not the yellow one) being the 2500 RPM shot. So you can see that it's not like the ball curves over 100% farther right because it has 5500 spin instead of 2500 spin. The graphic is the same two shots, with the "data" for the second shot at 5500 shown.
The point is that just mandating an "increase to spin" doesn't accomplish nearly what many seem to think it does.
How exactly did you come up with the 5500 rpm result? Are you allowed to set parameters on how much a particular ball spins off of driver? I.e., is there a ball parameters setting capability that allows you to define a ball that will spin at 5500 under typical driver parameters?
-
Funny.
Some
Tried to mess with grooves to eliminate spin in hopes of creating a demand for more “control”
Now some wanting more spin for less control
More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments
And that added spin would just make short game easier.
Like the grooves change, it would screw up a few players, but the overall change would not be what is hoped for re distance imo
-
Funny.
Some
Tried to mess with grooves to eliminate spin in hopes of creating a demand for more “control”
Now some wanting more spin for less control
More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments
And that added spin would just make short game easier.
Like the grooves change, it would screw up a few players, but the overall change would not be what is hoped for re distance imo
bingo-
If they want the ball to go shorter, at Tour level speeds..
construct a ball that goes shorter.
They already have them at some driving ranges.
Every other measure will either fail immediately, or be worked around in short order.
The idea that simply any spinnier ball, or smaller head, will cause a player to swing easier, is ludicrous.
It might cause SOME players an issue, but their place will quickly be taken by another player, who goes all out.
Hitting the center of the club is NOT that hard for elite players-it's controlling the face that determines accuracy.
Anyone watching Jack in the 60's,Arnie, Johnny Miller, or Tom Watson can't possible think they were swinging "easy".
The ball is the simplest, one stop shopping variable, though I compeltely understand a shorter, heavier driver, with a lower COR would be effectives as well, but that's just too many variables for the ruling bodies to get right-based on past(and proposed-46 inch limit) inept modifications to the rules.
-
Seems to me a lighter ball may be the silver bullet...thoughts?
We've had several posts suggesting it, some with good detail. What are the cons?
-
Seems to me a lighter ball may be the silver bullet...thoughts?
We've had several posts suggesting it, some with good detail. What are the cons?
Jim,
I'm not smart enough to know if that would be better or worse, but it would seem that it could be problematic in the wind.
Assuming someone supports a rollback(or bifurcation) I'm puzzled why they simply wouldn't just support a ball that is the same size, same weight, but goes x % shorter at 105-130 mph(Tour speeds) with current legal equipment.
And when they out engineer/optimize/get more athletic again in a few years, you dial it back(or forward) again if needed
-
Seems to me a lighter ball may be the silver bullet...thoughts?
We've had several posts suggesting it, some with good detail. What are the cons?
Have you considered how good putters would feel about a lighter ball? That's an overlooked "con."
-
Both Jeff and Erik...I don't think we're talking actual bouncing balloon weight lighter balls. I suspect a couple percent lighter than today would make a significant difference down flight but not enough for the wind to carry it away...or for lip out to stay out more than very slightly.
Maybe I'm wrong...
-
Both Jeff and Erik...I don't think we're talking actual bouncing balloon weight lighter balls. I suspect a couple percent lighter than today would make a significant difference down flight but not enough for the wind to carry it away...or for lip out to stay out more than very slightly.
I'm definitely not talking about lip-outs. And if you want to do 2% lighter… then what's the point? Does that even do anything?
What weight were the old "balloon" balls? How much shorter do the Lynx balls go when hit by an adult (they're also smaller in size, too, so it's not a direct comparison): https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/lynx-golf-junior-hi-fly-ai-golf-ball/ (https://golf.com/gear/golf-balls/lynx-golf-junior-hi-fly-ai-golf-ball/).
-
https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/)
Check out this piece by JVB.
1.62oz down to 1.55oz
-
Have you considered how good putters would feel about a lighter ball? That's an overlooked "con."
Considering being good at putting is relative to one being bad at putting, doesn't the question center around how difficult it would be for the good putter and bad putter to adjust to the new weight ball?. If the good putters touch allows them to adjust quicker, won't that just make them better putters relatively?
Also, how would that differ to putting on a different speed green, or a green with a different type of grass and grain?
-
https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/)
Check out this piece by JVB.
1.62oz down to 1.55oz
Yet, it failed the first time.
and seemed to be a real problem in the wind.
and why affect putting and touch.
Again, I simply don't see why(if possible) any adjustment other than how far it goes, is needed(I do realize smarter people then me might point out that is harder than I'm trying to make it)
-
https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/)
Check out this piece by JVB.
1.62oz down to 1.55oz
Interesting, so they changed both the size and weight, and the public determined the biggest issue was the weight? how? It seems that they were in favor of the size based on how the ball sat, making it easier to hit woods and long irons. So, while they found an advantage with the size did they really know that the negatives of the ball came strictly from the weight?
When the weight of the ball was returned to 1.62, they player at the time would have still noticed a performance difference between the old 1.62" diameter ball and the 1.68" diameter ball.
"The New York Times reported later that year that the primary complaints by players about the 'balloon' ball were that 'they were losing distance on their shots, found it increasingly difficult to play in the wind and finally that the ball did not have the true putting qualities of the old ball on the green.'"
These were the same complains often made when comparing the 1.68 American ball to the 1.62 British ball. So which change to the ball generated the greatest impact on the ball's play?
-
Dave Tutelman (https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/ballWeight.php) suggests that a lighter weight ball would both decrease distance from high swing speed players AND increase distance from low swing speed players, while having virtually no distance change to the average swing speed player.
(https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/ballWeight/dist_fixedloft.gif)
(https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/ballWeight/distRel_fixedloft.gif)
-
The physics/engineering required to make golf a proportional and smaller game is readily solvable. The specifics of the solution are less relevant than the political/cultural will needed to make it happen. Right now there is no meaningful constituency that requires the solution. The Cayman ball was created and tried because of a location that had land scarcity and someone that was willing to make an economic investment in a smaller game thinking that he could make an economic return from it. Until there is a problem that requires a solution there will be no economic necessity to mandate a smaller game.
This of course does not keep someone from self selecting into one of the alternatives such as hickory or persimmon/blade golf. Just don't expect any mass movement until there is a general problem for which that is the only solution.
-
Considering being good at putting is relative to one being bad at putting, doesn't the question center around how difficult it would be for the good putter and bad putter to adjust to the new weight ball?
I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.
A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes.
-
Considering being good at putting is relative to one being bad at putting, doesn't the question center around how difficult it would be for the good putter and bad putter to adjust to the new weight ball?
I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.
A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes.
That sounds like it would fall under the definition of "Rub of the Green". Any impact a green may have to a lighter ball would be equally experiences by all players.
Randomness is good in golf. It is what creates interest. If we knew exactly where each shot was going to go before we hit it we wouldn't play. We accept the impact of randomness in all aspects of play, both positive and negative. We expect the way we play to be influenced by randomness, as we try as much as possible to control it.
This is where skill comes into the equation. Luck, as the manifestation of randomness, does not diminish the importance of skill, in fact is it the exact opposite. As randomness is heightened, skill and strategy is heightened in turn. If you believe randomness can level a playing field, it should be easy to also see that same randomness is better for identifying great skill. As great skill will rise above the effects of randomness across a field of players. Negating the bad and accentuating the good.
Greens have not been smooth and flat for long. Probably a shorter amount of time than the 1.62" ball has been banned. Yet, for the entire history of the game there have been players that have been identified as great putters. Putting on bumpy greens, players like Locke, Crenshaw, Nicklaus, Casper, Jones, & Travis were still able to unquestionably separate themselves from the rest.
-
Luck, as the manifestation of randomness, does not diminish the importance of skill, in fact is it the exact opposite.
Nope.
-
Dave Tutelman (https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/ballWeight.php) suggests that a lighter weight ball would both decrease distance from high swing speed players AND increase distance from low swing speed players, while having virtually no distance change to the average swing speed player.
(https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/ballWeight/dist_fixedloft.gif)
(https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/ballWeight/distRel_fixedloft.gif)
Which is what I have been saying for years.
And as regards the essay Jon wrote, it completely ignores the improvements in ball construction made in the last 90 years.
Anyway, my contention is that there's a sweet spot weight at which you achieve the goal without going too far.
Yes, a lighter ball would be harder to control. But that would affect longer hitters much more than short hitters, it's a ballistic thing FWIW.
Finally, I suspect limited flight range balls are lighter. If someone has some putting a few on a good scale would be telling.
-
Considering being good at putting is relative to one being bad at putting, doesn't the question center around how difficult it would be for the good putter and bad putter to adjust to the new weight ball?
I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.
A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes.
Sounds like a whiny PGA Tour pro talking. Luck is part of the game
-
More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments
It's true that club/shafts/swings could change to counteract a higher spinning ball. But like everything in golf, those changes require a tradeoff.
As an example: You can lower ball spin coming of a club by moving the center of gravity forward in the head. But this reduces the MOI in the club, making it less forgiving. So if a player wants to go down that route, they have to take a risk with a club that won't hide their miss hits. Tradeoff.
What's happened the last 20 years is players have moved to higher MOI more forgiving drivers, yet at the same time, moved to a higher MOI, lower spinning ball, so they never had to experience this trade off of a more forgiving higher MOI driver adding spin to a drive. Capping MOI on the ball restores this tradeoff to the game.
-
Luck, as the manifestation of randomness, does not diminish the importance of skill, in fact is it the exact opposite.
Nope.
As long as the impact of luck is relatively balanced, the effect of randomness on play is equitable, i.e.:
- A drive hitting a tree and being deflected out of bounds vs. a drive hitting a tree OB and bouncing back inbounds
- A bladed sand shot hitting the pin and dropping in vs. a well struck approach hitting the pin and ricocheting into a bunker
- An online putting being deflected out by a spike mark vs. an offline putt that is redirected back online by a pebble
The existence of randomness in game play gives the player opportunities to demonstrate their skills.
A high skilled player who's approach shot hit the flagstick and ricochets into a bunker can easily get up and down, negating the impact of their "bad luck". While a low skilled player may end up making bogey from the same circumstance.
-
As long as the impact of luck is relatively balanced, the effect of randomness on play is equitable, i.e.:
No, it isn't.
More luck, more randomness, decreases the separation between higher skilled and lower skilled players.
I'm going to try not to get further into it with you because you've shown a propensity to ignore facts, science, etc.
-
Could you point us to some empirical data about the MOI of modern and Balata balls. There's plenty of discussion on the MOI of clubs but few actual numbers. There is zero information that I can find on MOI of balls.
“the moment of inertia for a 1.62 oz and 1.68 inch golf ball with evenly distributed weight through any diameter is 0.4572 oz·inch2. Hence, moments of inertia higher than about 0.46 oz·inch2 would be considered as a high moment of inertia ball.”
~(Golf ball having a high moment of inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6939249B2/en)) Acushnet Co. / Titleist
Old two piece balls would have had MOI’s close even distribution. This Dunlop / Maxfli / TaylorMade patent compares their high MOI wound ball to two piece balls in 2001. (Golf ball with high specific gravity threads (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030027664A1/en)) They show the 2 piece balls at 12.5 g in2, which is 0.44 oz in2.
The Titleist Tour Balata was calculated as having a MOI of between 0.407-0.412 oz in2, with the variance most likely the result of a difference between the 90 and 100 compression balls. (Golf Ball (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6599203B1/en)) Top Flight Golf Co. / Callaway Golf Co.
In the same Titleist patent listed above, they state a MOI above 0.575 oz in2 was ideal.
“The present invention is also preferably directed to a ball comprising a core, an intermediate layer and a cover wherein the weight or mass of the ball is allocated outwardly to form a high moment of inertia and wherein the cover is made from a soft material having a hardness of 65 (shore D) or less. The moment of inertia of the ball is preferably greater than 0.46 oz·inch2, more preferably 0.50 oz·inch2, and most preferably 0.575 oz·inch2. Similar to the embodiment discussed above, the intermediate layer may comprise a non-continuous layer having a high specific gravity. It may also comprise a thin dense layer and/or a second non-continuous layer. The core preferably has a low specific gravity and is preferably foamed. The specific gravities, locations, thicknesses, hardness and surface areas discussed above relating to the individual layers of the inventive golf ball are equally applicable to this embodiment.” ~(Golf ball having a high moment of inertia (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6939249B2/en)) Acushnet Co. / Titleist
Interestingly, Titleist discussed in the patent how to make a ball with .6898 oz in2 MOI.
If we take Titleist’s 0.575 oz in2 preferable number vs a two piece ball, we see it was 30% higher. Compared to a Tour Balata, the difference is now 40% higher.
As this patent is more than 15 years old, If the 0.6898 oz in2 was turned into a ball then we are starting to push towards these balls having twice the MOI of wound liquid filled balls!
Thanks for the links to the patents. Most seemed to have expired now. Their focus seemed to have been how to build golf balls with a particular set of characteristics, one of which was MOI. They seemed focused on foam cores or hollow cores or even cores floating in an aqueous layer as ways to increase the MOI and achieve their lift and drag coefficient goals. I'm not aware that balls built to the specs patented actually made it into a real retail ball. Their definition of high spin balls was 3700 rpms and low spin balls was 3100 rpms.
I don't dispute that a higher MOI ball will have lower spin. I do wonder how much of an impact an MOI change would have on spin rate and how much the MOI factor is compared to all the other factors that cause a ball to spin.
One of them even promotes that skilled players prefer higher spin rates for better control.
"The spin rate of golf balls is the end result of many variables, one of which is the distribution of the density or specific gravity within the ball. Spin rate is an important characteristic of golf balls for both skilled and recreational golfers. High spin rate allows the more skilled players, such as PGA professionals and low handicapped players, to maximize control of the golf ball. A high spin rate golf ball is advantageous for an approach shot to the green. The ability to produce and control back spin to stop the ball on the green and side spin to draw or fade the ball substantially improves the player's control over the ball. Hence, the more skilled players generally prefer a golf ball that exhibits high spin rate."
What I find missing is any of the patents and what I was really looking for was some empirical mathematical relationship between MOI and spin - that is if you raise the MOI from 0.4 to 0.5 it reduces the spin by xxx rpm's. Also of interest is how much does MOI contribute to spin compared to the spin angle, the various gear factors, the friction of the collision, etc. It is a complex multivariate physical event to mathematically model. It would be helpful to your argument if there were some experimental data that defined the relationship between MOI and spin.
About 8 years ago I did an anecdotal test on a sim with a Titleist Balata, a Professional and a modern ball. The Balata did spin more on average. But, the average delta (700 rpm) was less than the variation between shots with the same ball (as high as 1000 rpm).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51484092881_7f3878eb1a_c.jpg)
-
Funny.
Some
Tried to mess with grooves to eliminate spin in hopes of creating a demand for more “control”
Now some wanting more spin for less control
More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments
Yes, yes, yes. A 6° driver with a high kickpoint x-stiff shaft and a +3° AoA would probably do the job.
And that added spin would just make short game easier.
Like the grooves change, it would screw up a few players, but the overall change would not be what is hoped for re distance imo
-
Shifty Eric, who has shown a propensity to mix matters of opinion with matters of fact,
Here are two facts for you:
- A ball with more spin will fly shorter
- A ball with more spin will curve more
It is just your opinion that this change in ball flight is not enough to impact the game and won't matter. But the fact that ball flight does change is not disputable.
If you think golfing skill is best identified from hitting a ball exactly where you want in an environment of little randomness, then you need to stay in your indoor driving bay.
Playing golf is very much about the strategy of how to deal with the randomness found on the golf course. It would be boring and dull if it wasn't. This is why firm and fast conditions are preferable to soft and wet. The randomness of the bounce makes the strategy of play more engaging. Skill is found in navigating the randomness of that environment, which is part of what makes golf so unique, and what makes golf course architecture so interesting. If you can't see that, this site may not be for you.
-
More spin in the ball would be negated by many very quickly with Club/shaft/swing adjustments
It's true that club/shafts/swings could change to counteract a higher spinning ball. But like everything in golf, those changes require a tradeoff.
As an example: You can lower ball spin coming of a club by moving the center of gravity forward in the head. But this reduces the MOI in the club, making it less forgiving. So if a player wants to go down that route, they have to take a risk with a club that won't hide their miss hits. Tradeoff.
What's happened the last 20 years is players have moved to higher MOI more forgiving drivers, yet at the same time, moved to a higher MOI, lower spinning ball, so they never had to experience this trade off of a more forgiving higher MOI driver adding spin to a drive. Capping MOI on the ball restores this tradeoff to the game.
I don't understand your logic. How does a higher MOI driver add spin to a drive? A skilled player will adjust their club/shaft swing to reduce the spin to where they want it and achieve optimal launch conditions regardless of the MOI. What is the tradeoff? What is it that they lose?
-
What I find missing is any of the patents and what I was really looking for was some empirical mathematical relationship between MOI and spin - that is if you raise the MOI from 0.4 to 0.5 it reduces the spin by xxx rpm's. Also of interest is how much does MOI contribute to spin compared to the spin angle, the various gear factors, the friction of the collision, etc. It is a complex multivariate physical event to mathematically model. It would be helpful to your argument if there were some experimental data that defined the relationship between MOI and spin.
If you hold all other variables the same (weight, cover formulation, etc.) and JUST change the ball's MOI, it's inversely proportional.
If Ball B has 2x the MOI of Ball A, B would spin at half the rate of A (on the same axis, with the same ball speed, etc.). This is shown in the formulas I posted earlier.
Shifty Eric, who has shown a propensity to mix matters of opinion with matters of fact,
Well, good thing I'm not this "Eric" fella.
Here are two facts for you:
- A ball with more spin will fly shorter
- A ball with more spin will curve more
I never said otherwise.
What I did say was that even more than doubling the spin results in a smaller change than I think a lot of people would guess. And that engineers, etc. would work around an increase in spin pretty easily.
If you think golfing skill is best identified from hitting a ball exactly where you want in an environment of little randomness, then you need to stay in your indoor driving bay.
That's not what I said. I said that when you increase randomness, you decrease the role skill plays in determining the outcome. That's true.
-
Shifty Eric, who has shown a propensity to mix matters of opinion with matters of fact,
Here are two facts for you:
- A ball with more spin will fly shorter
Not necessarily. More spin may lead to more distance at a different launch angle.
- A ball with more spin will curve more
Also, not necessarily. A straight shot or a straight pull or a straight push all with a zero spin axis tilt don't curve more regardless of spin rate.
It is just your opinion that this change in ball flight is not enough to impact the game and won't matter. But the fact that ball flight does change is not disputable.
If you think golfing skill is best identified from hitting a ball exactly where you want in an environment of little randomness, then you need to stay in your indoor driving bay.
Playing golf is very much about the strategy of how to deal with the randomness found on the golf course. It would be boring and dull if it wasn't. This is why firm and fast conditions are preferable to soft and wet. The randomness of the bounce makes the strategy of play more engaging. Skill is found in navigating the randomness of that environment, which is part of what makes golf so unique, and what makes golf course architecture so interesting. If you can't see that, this site may not be for you.
The general "facts" don't help your case. It's hard to devise a strategy to deal with randomness. You can use your golf skills to take advantage of or recover from the results of randomness. The randomness of many links courses is fun for me with limited skills but probably not for tour pros who like predictability to best utilize their skills to beat their opponents.
-
Garland,
You should try out the Flightscope Trajectory Optimizer here: https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/ (https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/).
And, you could look at the TrajectoWare Drive here: https://trajectoware.tutelman.com/description.php (https://trajectoware.tutelman.com/description.php)
Both are designed to predict the flight of a golf ball based on a set of launch conditions that you can specify. The math of them is beyond me but they are no doubt vetted against real life data. Just because they allow you to enter values for parameters that you don't think can happen in real life doesn't mean that they don't accurately predict the flight. I should point out that the TrajectoWare says that it's only good for drivers up to 4000 rpm's. Have fun trying them out.
-
Re the ball size or weight discussion, I have suggested in the past that these are the easiest to regulate and enforce and which it would be hardest to circumvent and return to longer distances.
As points of reference, floater range balls are generally lighter than the current standard. The few times I've used then on a water range they didn't seem to fly any different. Hard to tell about the distance on a water range.
As to bigger balls, I saw a test of the Supersoft Magna ball from Callaway that is 3% larger and 10-15 yards shorter. The old British ball was a little more than 3% smaller and reputedly could go up to 50 yards further.
So, a ball a little larger than the Magna might do the job especially for the higher speed drivers.
-
Re the ball size or weight discussion, I have suggested in the past that these are the easiest to regulate and enforce and which it would be hardest to circumvent and return to longer distances.
As points of reference, floater range balls are generally lighter than the current standard. The few times I've used then on a water range they didn't seem to fly any different. Hard to tell about the distance on a water range.
As to bigger balls, I saw a test of the Supersoft Magna ball from Callaway that is 3% larger and 10-15 yards shorter. The old British ball was a little more than 3% smaller and reputedly could go up to 50 yards further.
So, a ball a little larger than the Magna might do the job especially for the higher speed drivers.
The proponents of the original TopFlite Magna and apparently the new Cally, claim it's actually longer for low swing speeds.
And Dave Tutelman's numbers say I'm right about lighter balls helping them too.
FWIW I weighed a ProV1 and it was 1.619 oz. Which is really close to the limit.
Oddly I have a Tour Balata and it was under 1.6 and an old NIB Reach Eagle that's even lighter.
And a Cayman that's only .69 oz.
-
Ken,
From reviews I read, the Supersoft Magna was shorter off the tee; straighter on all shots; longer with irons; and, less control around he green for high swing speed players. For slower swingers - maybe no loss from driver or slightly longer from more solid hits; straight; longer irons; and, less spin around the green. None of this is, of course, a reliable repeatable test. But, if decreasing distance for fast swingers is the goal, then bigger is one way to go, although these anecdotal reviews suggest that although it's shorter it's also straighter and less workable. Of course if they did different covers and layers and dimples they might get different results. Ball design and construction is a complicated art.
The old Balata and Professional balls I have are lighter too. I attribute it to the balls drying out with age. I'd bet they were close to the standard weight when new.
-
Bryan -
I have not read all of this fascinating thread, but your conclusion that the best way to limit the ball is by way of max. weight and/or min. size is also what John Low and others concluded in 1920 at the time of the first ball regulations. There had been a great deal of ball experimentation pre and post WWI. John Low, Crumbo Croome and others tested all sorts of balls and met regularly with ball manufacturers. They did not have the tools to make the measurements we can today, but they understood how complicated the interface was between ball technology and creating an effective ball limit.
Like you, they concluded that the best and simplest way to fix the ball problem was a rule based on size and weight. Which is what they did. The R&A and the USGA have both tweaked those limits over the years (not always in sync), but min. size and max. weight were seen as not only the best way to limit the ball, but the easiest rule to enforce.
If anyone is interested, I wrote a couple of pieces on the first ball rule for Through the Green some years ago and a podcast at the Fried Egg on the topic more recently.
Bob
-
"I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.[/size]A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes."
Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them. [/size]
-
"I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes."
Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.
It seems like we usually see good putters play on poa greens when they get bumpy late in the day. It is a real skill to make putts, particularly shorter putts, on late afternoon, bumpy poa greens that cause seemingly random bounces to throw putts off line.
-
"I'm not talking about adjusting. I'm talking about how a lighter ball would actually behave when putted.A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes."
Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.
It seems like we usually see good putters play on poa greens when they get bumpy late in the day. It is a real skill to make putts, particularly shorter putts, on late afternoon, bumpy poa greens that cause seemingly random bounces to throw putts off line.
Putting on bumpy greens takes conviction and confidence. Players who strike their putts firm and hole them with pace rise to the top on bumpy greens. This style is commonplace among very good putters.
The 2015 US Open and the putting styles between Spieth and DJ are an excellent example. Spieth was a much better putter that season, his more authoritarian putting style was more effective on Chambers Bay's bumpy greens. DJ putts softer and his uncommitted putting on 18 cost him the tournament. The better putter won that week because they were able to overcome the greens.
-
Worth a read and/or Podcast listen - USGA’s Mike Whan - https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/ (https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/)
Make of it what you wish.
Atb
-
Maybe the Premier Golf League should carve out their niche with dialed back equipment and host the tournaments on shorter and more historic venues.
-
Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.
No, you've still not gotten it. Nor has Ben.
-
Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.
No, you've still not gotten it. Nor has Ben.
So please tell me what part of my statement is not correct. Please enlighten me.
-
Worth a read and/or Podcast listen - USGA’s Mike Whan - https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/ (https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/)
Make of it what you wish.
Atb
Agreed definitely worth a listen, although Andy really lobbed some softballs for Whan to clobber before getting to the meat of the conversation. Whan's comments makes me think that the USGA will drag this process out as long as possible. Distance Insights, then some vague interim report, then comments/gnashing of teeth, etc. etc. The timeline sounds like a decade at best at that rate.
-
Worth a read and/or Podcast listen - USGA’s Mike Whan - https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/ (https://thefriedegg.com/mike-whan-usga-ceo-on-distance-debate-equipment-guidelines/)
Make of it what you wish.
Atb
Whan's comments makes me think that the USGA will drag this process out as long as possible. Distance Insights, then some vague interim report, then comments/gnashing of teeth, etc. etc. The timeline sounds like a decade at best at that rate.
You mean another decade(after two already)
ship sailed long ago, but hey, they can torture Phil(and Bryson) I guess
-
Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.
No, you've still not gotten it. Nor has Ben.
You, my friend, are full of it on the subject of bumpy greens.
Having grown up on Poa annua greens and having played at least a hundred tournament matches on them, I assure you that putting on them is a skill.
And it's a skill that can be learned.
And if you really believe that dropping the weight of the ball by something like 0.05 oz. will show up in putting...
-
Ian Baker-Finch was a great putter and I always thought he putted bad greens really well because he was usually hitting great putts - putts which seemed to me had a better chance of going in than putts not quite so purely hit or rolled.
And the greens at Birkdale were really bad the year he won The Open.
-
Ian Baker-Finch was a great putter and I always thought he putted bad greens really well because he was usually hitting great putts - putts which seemed to me had a better chance of going in than putts not quite so purely hit or rolled.
And the greens at Birkdale were really bad the year he won The Open.
The best putters putt better everywhere, but really shine on bad greens because they simply give the ball more chances to go in.
They alos are far less likely to lose their confidence on poor greens,secure in their knowledge that they are indeed good putters,unlike poor or average putters who can lose their stroke even more on a poor surface.
The ball is far smaller than the hole, and a dead center putt that wobbles and bumps has a better chance to still go in than one that was only marginally online to start. Also better putters have a knack for reading grain/bumps and even know who to add enough loft(ball forward and/or hands back) to avoid early grain or bumps.
-
Ian Baker-Finch was a great putter and I always thought he putted bad greens really well because he was usually hitting great putts - putts which seemed to me had a better chance of going in than putts not quite so purely hit or rolled.
And the greens at Birkdale were really bad the year he won The Open.
The best putters putt better everywhere, but really shine on bad greens because they simply give the ball more chances to go in.
They alos are far less likely to lose their confidence on poor greens,secure in their knowledge that they are indeed good putters,unlike poor or average putters who can lose their stroke even more on a poor surface.
The ball is far smaller than the hole, and a dead center putt that wobbles and bumps has a better chance to still go in than one that was only marginally online to start. Also better putters have a knack for reading grain/bumps and even know who to add enough loft(ball forward and/or hands back) to avoid early grain or bumps.
Also, some of them, like my brother who was a scratch golfer until he had a stroke at about age 60, and still stayed in single digits after, had a knack for getting the ball rolling on top of the grass.
Dave Stockton was like that, in fact I recall a report of him putting in the SAM lab and that no one they ever tested had less skid of the ball. My brother, like Stockton, used a forward press, and he also had a bit of upward movement in his follow through.
When he was on, the ball went in the hole like a mouse. Even on Poa annua.
-
So please tell me what part of my statement is not correct. Please enlighten me.
I'll re-state/clarify, even though I think the majority won't need this.
I have said that when you increase randomness or "luck," you decrease the effects of skill on the outcome. An event that's 100% random has no room for skill, and a game that's 100% skill (chess is close, except by luck white plays first) has little room for luck.
Take anything and make it "more random" and you reduce the role or influence of skill in determining the outcome.
A lighter ball would be subject to more random little bounces and whatnot, thus, better putters in particular would dislike it as it would reduce their advantage.
It's just logic.
-
So please tell me what part of my statement is not correct. Please enlighten me.
I'll re-state/clarify, even though I think the majority won't need this.
I have said that when you increase randomness or "luck," you decrease the effects of skill on the outcome. An event that's 100% random has no room for skill, and a game that's 100% skill (chess is close, except by luck white plays first) has little room for luck.
Take anything and make it "more random" and you reduce the role or influence of skill in determining the outcome.
A lighter ball would be subject to more random little bounces and whatnot, thus, better putters in particular would dislike it as it would reduce their advantage.
It's just logic.
This was my statement….” Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.”
[/size][/color]
[/size]You didn’t answer the question. What is not true?[/color]
-
Putting on slow or bumpy greens is a skill. I always hated playing on slow greens until I saw that statement on this site. You accept it, practice on it when they are slow and it's amazing how much better you putt. Especially when you are playing someone bitching about them.
No, you've still not gotten it. Nor has Ben.
You, my friend, are full of it on the subject of bumpy greens.
Having grown up on Poa annua greens and having played at least a hundred tournament matches on them, I assure you that putting on them is a skill.
And it's a skill that can be learned.
And if you really believe that dropping the weight of the ball by something like 0.05 oz. will show up in putting...
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been playing on Poa greens for nearly 50 years.
-
You didn’t answer the question. What is not true?
I wasn't even addressing anything you said there (because none of what you are talking about is at all provable, and falls under "myth" or "anecdotal" headings). I was addressing Ben's incorrect comments about skill and randomness.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been playing on Poa greens for nearly 50 years.
People used to think "drive for show, putt for dough" was true, too.
Increase randomness and you decrease the separation in skill. Just logical.
-
You didn’t answer the question. What is not true?
I wasn't even addressing anything you said there (because none of what you are talking about is at all provable, and falls under "myth" or "anecdotal" headings). I was addressing Ben's incorrect comments about skill and randomness.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve been playing on Poa greens for nearly 50 years.
People used to think "drive for show, putt for dough" was true, too.
Increase randomness and you decrease the separation in skill. Just logical.
What we're saying is that the bumpiness that occurs in putting greens doesn't so much create actual randomness, as it creates a situation where truly good putters' roll of the ball is affected less than the roll of poorer putters.
The explanation I have used that gets the most resonance with good players is that it's like playing in the wind. Well-struck shots are less affected by the wind, and perfectly rolled putts are less affected by the surface.
What I have seen playing tournaments against even good players who have all or most of their experience on smooth, fast greens is that their strokes are good at two things, line and speed. But many, many of them don't get the ball turning end over end very effectively.
I don't have access to putting lab equipment, but I would love to see the effect of a stroke like Dave Stockton's on balls rolled on "imperfect" greens vs. a stroke of someone who didn't roll it like he did.
They measure the amount of skid and bounce, but everything I have seen from the labs leaves out what that means on various "quality" of surfaces.
I figured it out for myself when I moved from a town where the only course had small, fast greens that were walk mowed seven days a week, to one that had huge greens that were triplex mowed.
And the first course was in an area where cool nights all summer long, and reasonable humidity and precip. meant that the greens weren't very stressed. My new home had hot, dry, windy weather in the summer, and a lot of exposed, elevated greens, so the superintendent was very cautious about height of cut.
As a consequence, at age 28 I almost had to start over with my putting technique. But the exercise taught me a lot about how my stroke determined the roll of the ball, not the surface.
-
What we're saying is that the bumpiness that occurs in putting greens doesn't so much create actual randomness, as it creates a situation where truly good putters' roll of the ball is affected less than the roll of poorer putters.
Y'all can believe what you want. That doesn't make it true. You have anecdotes, not proof.
Increase the role of randomness and skill plays a lesser role. A lighter ball will be deflected more than a heavier ball.
It's anecdotal as well, but:
https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/john-vander-borght-the-balloon-ball/)
The New York Times reported later that year that the primary complaints by players about the ‘balloon’ ball were that ‘they were losing distance on their shots, found it increasingly difficult to play into the wind and finally that the ball did not have the true putting qualities of the old ball on the green.’
Once the hot weather arrived the players found that the balls didn’t roll as accurately either.
-
But Erik, their position is that the poor putters will be effected more than the good putters by this increased randomness. It’s not a zero sum game like chess or the lottery where increasing luck must have an offsetting reduction in skill.
-
But Erik, their position is that the poor putters will be effected more than the good putters by this increased randomness. It’s not a zero sum game like chess or the lottery where increasing luck must have an offsetting reduction in skill.
100% is 100%. What other inputs are there beyond "skill" and "randomness" in saying "those two things determine the outcome"? What else is there? Because I think everything you could tell me fits into "skill."
You're seemingly buying in to the stuff they're selling you. Good putters are good putters. Good putters putt well on all types of surfaces. You're getting caught up in the fact that some players can prefer (because they grew up playing, perhaps) one type of grass over another. But they're still going to be good putters, and on the PGA Tour, they get pretty good at playing all types of surfaces. Brandt Snedeker has a reputation for playing well at Pebble, and by extension putting well there, but that requires people to both ignore the times he doesn't play well there, and the times he doesn't have a great putting round there, and that he's a pretty good putter everywhere else, too. (Top 40 in SG:P every year, often top 15 or 10, going back to 2014 when I stopped looking, so probably before that too…)
So, yes, some players slightly prefer one surface over another — it can take a little while to learn to adjust for the slight speed change found in grainy Bermuda if you grew up playing on poa as I did — but putting is about reading the green, hitting your line, and controlling your distance, and those skills translate across all putts everywhere. Good putters all tend to hit putts similarly, and bad putters tend to have poorer speed control and poorer start line control (and/or poorer reads, of course).
So just as with Brandt, you can say "oh, Jordan Spieth putted better than Dustin Johnson at Chambers Bay" but look past the fact that you're talking about a guy who finished second, and clearly played (and putted) better than many, many others there. And ignore that even 72 holes is a pretty small sample size when you're talking about "luck" in putting, while these guys would be putting with a ball that weighed maybe 4-5% less with every putt forever, over far more than 72 holes. You can say things like "oh he gets the ball rolling on top of the grass" or "his ball looks like it dives in the hole like a mouse" but that's all just gobbledygook that reinforces what you think you see. It's the same type of thinking that led to "drive for show, putt for dough" type comments. If Strokes Gained type stuff has taught us much, it's that some of these things aren't grounded in reality.
Guys on the PGA Tour are measured with many, many measuring devices. Quintic, SAM, Capto… They all "get the ball rolling on top of the grass" pretty well — you can't really make the ball roll "through" or "under" the grass. It's not physically possible. And this isn't the 1970s when greens were cut longer — PGA Tour players putt on 10-11 stimp greens week in and week out — and when a lot of these types of "phrases" were born. Some players still deliver a bit too much loft, or hit down a bit and get a tiny bit of "backspin" (which can negatively affect distance control/speed a bit), but even those who deliver great launch conditions are getting only the tiniest bit of "forward roll" on the ball. The difference between good and bad putters is generally not their true "launch conditions" — it's read, bead, and speed. The balls of good and bad putters still launch a bit in the air, lands and bounce ever so slightly, and as friction grabs the ball, converts the ball to forward roll where the rotation rate matches the linear rate (i.e. true roll). Good putters read putts a bit better, or control distance a bit better, or hit their intended lines a bit more often.
And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.
And it's just one of the side effects of one of the "ideas" for rolling back the ball — it won't putt the same, and putting will be a lower or lesser "separator" than it is now. (Maybe some people would like that!) And like I said, if you want anecdotes, they also support what I'm saying — read the article here on GCA by JVB and it said twice about the lighter ball that players didn't like how it putted — likely because it was "more random" and "less skill."
Is it the biggest factor? No. Is it likely to be measurable? Yes, I think so. Are there other things, too: yeah, of course: a lighter ball will sit up in the rough more, or even sit up in the fairways more. It'll sit up in bunkers more. It'll be more affected by the wind. It'll go perhaps farther for a slower swinger (narrowing the gap non-linearly, as the Tutelman graphs show). Balls might land at sharper angles because they might launch a bit higher or rise a bit more… all kinds of things will change. If there is to be a rollback, I'd just hope that all things are considered. Imagine how much of a pain it would be to roll the ball back, and then find out that either a) engineers or whomever just "work around" it in a year or two, or b) that there are two or three "bad" and unintended but unforeseen consequences?
This is the kind of thing — putting performance — that could be tested. Get a Perfect Putter and roll thousands of putts on actual putting greens and see how many are made (and where the misses finish) with a lighter ball and a current ball. You'll see a larger distribution pattern on the lighter ball. So, if the "lighter ball" is chosen as the way to go forward… I just hope they know what they're getting, and they've tested and planned for every outcome, including the narrowing of "separation" between good and bad putters.
-
And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.
For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.
You have anecdotes, not proof.
As you above statement is pure opinionated anecdote, I'm eagerly awaiting statistical proof to back up your claims.
-
And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.
For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.
You have anecdotes, not proof.
As you above statement is pure opinionated anecdote, I'm eagerly awaiting statistical proof to back up your claims.
There's got to be a way to get the data one way or the other.
Maybe separating SGP by surface type would get us something useful.
Better would be using a putting robot set up to emulate the best and worst rolls of the pros and putting with it on pure vs. "bumpy" surfaces. Noting, however, that the pros don't ever see actually bumpy greens
FWIW, I saw a quote from Max Faulkner about picking up debris on his putting line when asked why he hadn't. Didn't he worry about it knocking his ball off line?
"Just as easily knock it back on line."
Also, the putting quote from Jon VDBs essay was both clearly anecdotal and involved balls that were both bigger and lighter than previously.
If the point of this argument is that pros aren't going to like balls that are different...well, duh.
-
And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.
For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.
Considering the above statement.
A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed. But a ball that is traveling outside the edge of the hole could only be misdirected in one of two ways and result in a holed putt. If the ball is misdirected the opposite way, it would just miss the hole by a wider margin.
The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.
-
And a ball that's lighter will negatively affect the good putter more than it will negatively affect the bad putter. At the end of the day, more randomness favors the "worse" putter because the gap is narrowed. It doesn't make the "bad" putter better. It makes the better putter "more worse" than it makes the bad putter. The better putter is still better… his gap is just narrowed.
For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.
Considering the above statement.
A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed. But a ball that is traveling outside the edge of the hole could only be misdirected in one of two ways and result in a holed putt. If the ball is misdirected the opposite way, it would just miss the hole by a wider margin.
The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.
Ben, if I'm reading your post correctly, you are making Erik's point for him, aren't you?
When you point out (correctly, I might add) that an offline putt can only be knocked online in one direction, while an online putt can be knocked off line in two directions, you are actually arguing that a better putter will be impacted more, and there's no way around that.
Better putters start the ball online more often than lesser putters, don't they? So the better putter doesn't need the "help" in having the ball knocked online you are talking about, even if it's only in one direction, as often as the lesser putter. Meanwhile, the better putter's online putts, which are more frequent to begin with, will also therefore more often be knocked offline, and in two different directions.
That's randomness, for sure, and there is NO way that doesn't impact the better putter more. The lesser putter is going to miss more often anyway; the better putter is going to miss more than they would have otherwise. Again, there is just no way around that.
Randomness in sports, ALL sports, reduces the gap between better players and teams vs lesser players and teams. I have NO chance of beating Lebron in basketball, but I might be able to take him in a coin flip contest.
-
A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed. But a ball that is traveling outside the edge of the hole could only be misdirected in one of two ways and result in a holed putt. If the ball is misdirected the opposite way, it would just miss the hole by a wider margin.
The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.
Ben, if I'm reading your post correctly, you are making Erik's point for him, aren't you?
When you point out (correctly, I might add) that an offline putt can only be knocked online in one direction, while an online putt can be knocked off line in two directions, you are actually arguing that a better putter will be impacted more, and there's no way around that.
AG,
The same logic was once thought to apply to making the hole larger. A larger hole would hurt the better putters because others near misses would go in more frequently. What was found was a better putter's advantage actually grew. A good putter makes more putts than an average putter AND a good putter has more near-misses than an average putter.
For a misdirection to matter, the magnitude of the misdirection must be in proportion to the line of the putt. A ball that has a perfect line would need to be misdirected more than 2 inches left or right to miss the hole. A ball that is 1" wide of the hole would need a misdirection of ~1.25 inches in the correct direction to be turned into a made putt. As the magnitude needed to impact the putt's outcome grows, the probability of that outcome diminishes.
So you are correct, the better putter will be impacted more, but in a positive way for them. The misdirection does not hurt a good putter who's ball is online. As they have more near-misses than the average player, they have more opportunities to capitalize on a positive near-miss misdirection than the average player. Their putting advantage is heightened.
-
This thread is a perfect illustration of the how the USGA's inaction over 20 years has allowed them to perfect the art of distraction, much to the glee of the manufacturers.
Mike Whan's recent "Christmas Tree presents" analogy being the icing on the cake for their status quo justifications.
-
A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed. But a ball that is traveling outside the edge of the hole could only be misdirected in one of two ways and result in a holed putt. If the ball is misdirected the opposite way, it would just miss the hole by a wider margin.
The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.
Ben, if I'm reading your post correctly, you are making Erik's point for him, aren't you?
When you point out (correctly, I might add) that an offline putt can only be knocked online in one direction, while an online putt can be knocked off line in two directions, you are actually arguing that a better putter will be impacted more, and there's no way around that.
AG,
The same logic was once thought to apply to making the hole larger. A larger hole would hurt the better putters because others near misses would go in more frequently. What was found was a better putter's advantage actually grew. A good putter makes more putts than an average putter AND a good putter has more near-misses than an average putter.
For a misdirection to matter, the magnitude of the misdirection must be in proportion to the line of the putt. A ball that has a perfect line would need to be misdirected more than 2 inches left or right to miss the hole. A ball that is 1" wide of the hole would need a misdirection of ~1.25 inches in the correct direction to be turned into a made putt. As the magnitude needed to impact the putt's outcome grows, the probability of that outcome diminishes.
So you are correct, the better putter will be impacted more, but in a positive way for them. The misdirection does not hurt a good putter who's ball is online. As they have more near-misses than the average player, they have more opportunities to capitalize on a positive near-miss misdirection than the average player. Their putting advantage is heightened.
I don't see those two things as analogous in the least; one makes putting easier and is in NO way random, while the other "punishes" randomly, regardless and to the detriment of skill. One rewards good putting even more, and the other penalizes better putting disproportionately, since the lesser putter was already going to miss. They don't match up even a little bit.
-
So a lighter ball would affect putting, driving, and presumably iron play. Any way to figure out if the effects would fall disproportionately on any particular skill set?
-
AG and Erik,
You see the lighter ball bouncing out of the hole on good putters having a greater effect than on bad putters who will already miss.
What happens on the second putts?
I see the good putters missing one or two putts because of this but see the bad putter missing several second putts because their first putt is now further away.
Thoughts?
-
So a lighter ball would affect putting, driving, and presumably iron play. Any way to figure out if the effects would fall disproportionately on any particular skill set?
Because the effect on full shots is determined by ballistics, it should be somewhat proportional to ball speed.
Hence Dave Tutelman's conclusion that the shortest hitters would gain from a lighter ball. If his math is right, and I think it is, long hitters would see drives impacted but not irons.
The actual change in weight would determine where the "no effect" zone would be.
Re. putting we're talking about 0.05 oz. change certainly no more than the 0.07 oz. change in 1930.
This is not a Cayman ball bouncing all over. (The Cayman was about half the weight of a normal ball.)
This has me intrigued though, and i intend to take the Cayman I have out for a test when I get to AZ in a week or so.
-
So far I've yet to see any scientific evidence that suggests lesser putters would benefit (by being hurt less than by better putters) for a lighter ball or bumpier greens.
Anecdotally thou, I'd tend to agree that better putters both tend to get the ball online more AND are better at judging speed, so on a poor surface I don't see how they would be hurt more than lesser putters. And bad bounces certainly don't all happen in one direction, pure randomness tell us sometimes they'll be knocked offline and others online, and on poor greens you can be looking at multiple bad bounces on just one putt!
-
For this to be true, a ball that is offline would have to be knocked online at a higher frequency than a ball that is online being knocked offline.
That's not how that works.
Imagine a basketball player who shoots at 80% and another who shoots at 60%. Something is installed in the basket that rejects 50% of the shots, randomly. What was a 20% gap in separation becomes a 10% gap: the 80% shooter makes 40%, the 60% shooter makes 30%.
Let's say that this thing also randomly directs 10% of the misses back into the basket. The good shooter now makes 42%. The bad shooter now makes 34%. That narrows the gap to an 8% difference, when they started at 20%.
Play with the numbers all you want: the effects of both, even if applied "equitably" as you said earlier, narrows the gap any way you cut it.
If both are done at 50% (which is silly, because putts are far more likely to be diverted out of the hole than misses are to be diverted into the hole), then both become 50% shooters. It's entirely random. If it's only 10% on makes an 1% on misses changing their outcomes, the 80% shooter becomes a 72.2% shooter and the 60% shooter becomes a 54.4% shooter - what was 20% becomes a 17.8% difference.
"Just as easily knock it back on line."
It doesn't work that way. More bumps = more offline on average (a wider distribution).
A ball that is traveling towards the middle of the hole could be misdirected both left & right and still be holed.
I think you're grossly under-estimating how large the distribution pattern is for even a good putter. Are you only thinking about like 4' putts or something? I'm talking about ALL putts.
A ball that is going to go in and which is "deflected offline" is going to miss most of the time, while a ball that is going to miss can only go in if it's mis-directed the proper direction — a putt missing only barely left can only go in if it's mis-directed to the right, not if it's mis-directed to the left (or not mis-directed at all).
A "made" putt has a nearly 100% chance of missing if it's "misdirected," while a missed putt (assuming it's mis-directed the proper amount) has a 50% chance of going in if it is mis-directed in the proper direction.
The end result is the hole would effectively play smaller, benefiting the player who makes more putts in the middle of the hole.
A 0.6° deviation is enough to divert a putt that is going to roll about 18" (capture size is about 2.3" at that speed) away from the hole (outside 1.15") from as little as just inside 10' from the hole.
Look, I can take a Perfect Putter and roll balls from the same height to a hole 20' away. I did this the other day, and 2 out of 7 went in. Three missed low and finished about 13-15" past the hole. Two missed high and finished the same distance past the hole. That's due to randomness. If the green was a billiards table (but a bit slower, of course), I could up that make %. If the green was bumpier, I'd miss more.
When you point out (correctly, I might add) that an offline putt can only be knocked online in one direction, while an online putt can be knocked off line in two directions, you are actually arguing that a better putter will be impacted more, and there's no way around that.
Thank you! Yes! Mark Broadie talked about the effects of a larger hole in his book, and many (like Ben) thought a bigger hole would favor good putters. People (like Ben, apparently) thought that good putters just missed or nearly made a lot more putts, so with a larger hole, those that just missed would go in, while bad putters missed badly enough that they'd just keep missing them.
This "larger hole" effectively creates the same situation as increased randomness resulting in a larger finish position distribution of putts. Broadie's conclusion?
Luke Donald and Gene Sarazen were right: Poor putters would benefit from a larger hole more than good putters. Simulation results with an eight-inch-diameter hole show that a typical pro putter would gain five strokes from a larger hole; a 90-golfer would gain 6.5 strokes. The gap between good and poor putters narrows with a larger hole. Here’s the intuition: Poor putters have more room for improvement, so the larger hole will benefit them more. Pro putters rarely three-putt and they average about seven one-putts and 11 two-putts in 18 holes. The only room for improvement is turning some two-putts into one-putts. With a larger hole, a 90-golfer will eliminate most three-putts and will have a bigger increase in one-putt holes. A larger hole narrows the difference between good and poor putters, making putting less important.
If you want to question Mark Broadie's grasp of probability and statistics, go ahead. Since it aligns with all that I've been saying and the guy probably knows his stuff… I'm going to go with it.
Better putters start the ball online more often than lesser putters, don't they? So the better putter doesn't need the "help" in having the ball knocked online you are talking about, even if it's only in one direction, as often as the lesser putter. Meanwhile, the better putter's online putts, which are more frequent to begin with, will also therefore more often be knocked offline, and in two different directions.
That's almost exactly the same wording as Broadie used above.
That's randomness, for sure, and there is NO way that doesn't impact the better putter more. The lesser putter is going to miss more often anyway; the better putter is going to miss more than they would have otherwise. Again, there is just no way around that.
Yep.
Randomness in sports, ALL sports, reduces the gap between better players and teams vs lesser players and teams. I have NO chance of beating Lebron in basketball, but I might be able to take him in a coin flip contest.
Indeed.
The same logic was once thought to apply to making the hole larger. A larger hole would hurt the better putters because others near misses would go in more frequently. What was found was a better putter's advantage actually grew. A good putter makes more putts than an average putter AND a good putter has more near-misses than an average putter.
OMG! I'd written all of what I wrote above before I read this response of yours.
Also, you seem to contradict yourself: you said a larger hole would "hurt" the better putters, then you talk about how the better putter's advantage grew. Also, I don't think the second statement is true. Broadie found the opposite to be true, as I quoted above.
For a misdirection to matter, the magnitude of the misdirection must be in proportion to the line of the putt. A ball that has a perfect line would need to be misdirected more than 2 inches left or right to miss the hole.
Only golf balls that barely reach the middle of the hole will go in "more than 2" left or right" of the hole. You're not factoring in capture size on putts hit past the hole, and again, 1.15" is enough to misdirect a ball from under 10' out after less than a 0.6° misdirection.
So you are correct, the better putter will be impacted more, but in a positive way for them.
Nope. Good putters aren't missing the hole by only a teeny amount. Their distribution pattern — like those of bad putters — only grows with more "randomness."
--------------
Imagine this: players are given a ball that they have to slide or throw into a basket or bucket or hole. There's nothing in the way, there's no wind, the hole doesn't randomly move, etc. This is a game where skill is almost entirely determines the outcome (I'm saying "almost" because I'm reluctant to say always/never). It's like shooting free throws in basketball in an empty arena, except that there's really only one fairly narrow path that really works (like in putting, where the highest and lowest lines aren't all that far apart).
Again, it's a game that's nearly entirely skill-based.
Now imagine instead of just having a free throw or a free line to drop the ball into the bucket, a single "object" is put somewhere in the way. Maybe it'll be along the chosen path, maybe it won't be. This favors the bad player, but not much: when it's on the correct line, the good player is more likely to hit this object and "miss" what would have been a made shot than the bad player. When it's not on the correct line, it doesn't "help" either player on a good shot, but it helps the bad player more often than it helps the good player only because the bad player has more chances for it to help them.
That's just one object in the way.
Now imagine a Plinko field full of objects in the way: the good and bad player would have almost no separation between them at this point. It's almost entirely luck. Sure, the good player's distribution will still be a little bit narrower, but it'll be much wider than it used to be, and the bad player will STILL have more chances for the ball to be diverted into the hole than the good player, and the good player will have more chances for the ball to be diverted OUT of the hole when it was going to go in than the bad player.
Or, as I said a few days ago:
More luck, more randomness, decreases the separation between higher skilled and lower skilled players.
And
A lighter ball would be more affected by little imperfections and would bounce around more. Randomness levels the playing field and favors "bad" putters over good putters. The more "luck" plays a role, the less important "skill" becomes.
====================
Edit to add this:
Now, since that should put that to bed (and if not, seriously, take it up with Mark Broadie or something), could we get back to talking about the "rollback" since the comment I made which got this started was that a lighter ball would not be enjoyed by good putters as they'd lose some of their advantage over worse putters? It's a tiny little side topic to this point: IF the ruling bodies do eventually do something in this area, I hope they consider and understand ALL of the ramifications.
-
2 for 7?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEXESf5tSF8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEXESf5tSF8)
John was 3 for 3. I guess he was on better greens. Amazingly they all enter the hole at the exact same spot.
-
Erik,
I think poor/bumpy greens putting needs to be kept in perspective. Even on the best greens, anything from even 15-20 feet, a great putter is still going to be lucky to make half of them. (Last year, only one guy did better than 50% on tour and the Tour average was 18%). So if those greens are now bumpy, its basically a complete crap shoot for everyone and difficult to measure.
I think its more interesting to look at say 7 foot putts, where last year on Tour the best player holed 79% of them, the worst 36% of the time, and the Tour Average was 61%.
Lets imagine two putters attempting a 7 footer on a bumpy green: one a very good putter, the other mediocre/average. For the sake of the exercise, we will assume the putt is basically flat and the very good putter has lined it up correctly and starts the stroke at the center of the cup, while the poor one is lined up wrong and starts at the right edge.
There are 5 basic scenarios that could happen for a putt of this length, assuming some type of random bounce left or right.
Very Good Putter Mediocre Putter
(Starts center cup) (Starts right edge)
Stays on line Goes in (1) 50/50 (.5)
Small kick left Goes in (1) Goes in (1)
Small kick right Goes in (1) Miss (0)
Bigger kick left 50/50 (.5) Goes in (1)
Bigger kick right 50/50 (.5) Big miss (0)
In this circumstance:
- The good putter will hole out 3 of 5 times, and still have a chance the other 2 times.
- The mediocre putter will hole out 2 of 5 times, have a chance one other time, but definitely miss 2 other times.
I'll take the odds on the better putter here. Every. Single. Time.
-
Erik,
The large hole test doesn't replicate the bouncing ball hypothetical at all because it's a test of making things easier as opposed to more difficult.
This idea of more difficult putting came up years ago and I asked this simple question; in all the activities in the world, which other one becomes relatively easier for the lesser participant as conditions become more difficult?
-
I don't see those two things as analogous in the least; one makes putting easier and is in NO way random, while the other "punishes" randomly, regardless and to the detriment of skill. One rewards good putting even more, and the other penalizes better putting disproportionately, since the lesser putter was already going to miss. They don't match up even a little bit.
Player A hits 100 putts on pure greens. 20 of them dead center. 12 of them go in on the right half, 12 go in on the left half. 10 of them miss just left. 10 of them miss just right. The other 42 putts miss by a couple inches.
Player A made 44 Putts on pure greens.
Player B hits 100 putts on pure greens. 18 are dead center. 10 of them go in on the right. 10 of them go in on the left. 6 of them miss just left. 6 of them miss just right. The other putts miss by a couple inches.
Player B made 38 putts on pure greens.
Player A is clearly a better putter on pure greens, as they make 6 more putts per 100 putts.
Now they do the same thing, but on bumpier greens. For this model, the bumpier greens mean half of the putts go 1 inch right of where they would on pure greens and half go 1 inch to the left.
Player A’s 20 putts that would have been dead center still go in, just on the left or right side. Half of the putts they would have gone in on the left bounce right and still go in, the other half bounce left and miss. So 6 makes. The opposite happens on the right, leading to 6 more makes. Half of the putts that just missed right on pure greens now bounce in, leading to 5 more makes. Same on the other side misses, leading to 5 more makes. The rest of the putts are too far away for the bounces to matter.
Player A makes 42 putts on bumpy greens.
Player B’s 18 putts that were dead center all still go in, but now on the right or left. Half of putts on the left and right sides of the hole go in now, so 5 and 5. And half of the puts that would have just missed on pure greens now go in. 3 and 3. The rest of the putts are too far ways for the bounces to change the outcome
Player B makes 34 putts on bumpy greens.
Player A is relatively an even better putter on bumpy greens as they make 8 more putts than player B.
The randomness of the greens affected the amount of putts the better putter’s made less than the bad putters because they had more putts struck in the middle that couldn't miss, and more putts just off the edges that could get favorable bounces.
The idea that randomness always favors the poorer, less skilled, player is not true.
-
Ben,
Where are those numbers from?
-
Jim,
This model illustrates that distribution of performance is what determines how randomness impacts a particular player.
A blanket statement can not be made that randomness always helps the lesser player.
-
I agree with you...was just curious.
What's been left out of this conversation is what happens to those putts that miss. The lesser player will sure miss more of those second putts for a whole host of reasons.
As Ken has said though...we're talking 0.05oz so not exactly moving to ping pong balls.
-
Mark Broadie talked about the effects of a larger hole in his book, and many (like Ben) thought a bigger hole would favor good putters. People (like Ben, apparently) thought that good putters just missed or nearly made a lot more putts, so with a larger hole, those that just missed would go in, while bad putters missed badly enough that they'd just keep missing them.
This "larger hole" effectively creates the same situation as increased randomness resulting in a larger finish position distribution of putts. Broadie's conclusion?
Luke Donald and Gene Sarazen were right: Poor putters would benefit from a larger hole more than good putters. Simulation results with an eight-inch-diameter hole show that a typical pro putter would gain five strokes from a larger hole; a 90-golfer would gain 6.5 strokes. The gap between good and poor putters narrows with a larger hole. Here’s the intuition: Poor putters have more room for improvement, so the larger hole will benefit them more. Pro putters rarely three-putt and they average about seven one-putts and 11 two-putts in 18 holes. The only room for improvement is turning some two-putts into one-putts. With a larger hole, a 90-golfer will eliminate most three-putts and will have a bigger increase in one-putt holes. A larger hole narrows the difference between good and poor putters, making putting less important.
If you want to question Mark Broadie's grasp of probability and statistics, go ahead. Since it aligns with all that I've been saying and the guy probably knows his stuff… I'm going to go with it.
Gene Sarazen did think that poor putters would benefit from a larger hole, and he was a big proponent of increasing the hole size.
In 1933, Sarazen was instrumental in getting the Miami-Biltmore pro tournament to use 6” holes instead of 4.25” holes. So this idea has been tried in actual professional competition.
The result was Paul Runyan won. Paul Runyan was likely the shortest player in the field, It’s been said that Sam Sneed would out drive him by 75 yards, however he is largely thought to have had one of the best short games in the history of golf.
Runyan didn’t just win, he won by 10 shots!
That’s where the idea that a bigger hole helps the better putter comes from. An actual tournament where the best putter destroyed the field.
This should hopefully get you to reconsider Broadie’s simulation (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark-Broadie/publication/221526644_A_simulation_model_to_analyze_the_impact_of_hole_size_on_putting_in_golf/links/55926f7508ae15962d8e6ae8/A-simulation-model-to-analyze-the-impact-of-hole-size-on-putting-in-golf.pdf?origin=publication_detail) which is just math, and statistics fit to a curve. Some of the assumptions in that study are not very sound, but more importantly it’s not structured to actually compare how an amateur would putt vs a professional with larger holes.
This is because Broadie modeled professionals putting on greens running at 11 ft, and putting from the places they usually put from, and compared them to a different model of amateurs on greens running at 9 ft at the places they usually putt from. They were 2 different simulations and he somehow tried to correlate the two.
You can’t make any sound conclusions about how hole size affects putters of different skill, when the study doesn’t equalize other variables, like greens speed and length of putts, when making the comparison. That paper would be laughed out of any reasonable statistical review.
-
The Paul Runyan story is mentioned in one of Bob Rotella’s books.
-
I don't understand the line of thinking that a bigger hole would give the lesser player a bigger advantage. The only reason I thought they should do it is to make casual rounds go faster with more holeouts...
If they made a basketball hoop 24 inches in diameter, up from 18...yes other players would make more 3s, but Steph Curry might not ever miss a 3 for the rest of his career! ;)
-
The Paul Runyan story is mentioned in one of Bob Rotella’s books.
"In 1933 Gene Sarazen and some other touring pros decided that there was entirely too much emphasis on the short game, particularly putting. They wanted to redesign golf to favor “shotmaking.” So they prevailed on the organizers of some winter tournaments in Florida to expand the diameter of the hole from 4 ¼ inches to 8 inches.
The first tournament conducted with the big hole was called the Florida Year-Round Open. Most players began charging every putt. It didn’t work. Sarazen had several three-putt greens. Runyan had no three-putts. He played his normal game on the greens, and won by 11 strokes.
The advocates of the big hole decided this must have been an aberration. They staged another big-hole tournament, this one in Tampa, at match play. The finalists were Paul Runyan and Willie McFarlane, who was also a great short-game player. Runyan won again.
The experiment with the big hole ended abruptly that day. It proved only that there is no getting around the importance of the short game."
~Bob Rotella, Golf Is A Game Of Confidence
-
John was 3 for 3. I guess he was on better greens. Amazingly they all enter the hole at the exact same spot.
Call John and ask him how random putting can be from 20'. That wasn't a 20-footer, and even at the shorter distance, he missed putts 4 and 6 (and all of putts 7-9 but they weren't ever going in).
I think poor/bumpy greens putting needs to be kept in perspective. Even on the best greens, anything from even 15-20 feet, a great putter is still going to be lucky to make half of them.
Of course. But that doesn't change what I've been saying: the gap still narrows.
And https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.406.y2021.html (https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.406.y2021.html) shows the "leader" at 30.67%.
Lets imagine two putters attempting a 7 footer on a bumpy green: one a very good putter, the other mediocre/average. For the sake of the exercise, we will assume the putt is basically flat and the very good putter has lined it up correctly and starts the stroke at the center of the cup, while the poor one is lined up wrong and starts at the right edge.
You're assuming things that aren't accurate: the good putter doesn't aim at the center of the hole, and the bad putter doesn't aim at the edge. At best, you could say they do those things the % of the time they make or miss putts. You, like Ben later on, are just making things up, and yet…
In this circumstance:- The good putter will hole out 3 of 5 times, and still have a chance the other 2 times.- The mediocre putter will hole out 2 of 5 times, have a chance one other time, but definitely miss 2 other times.
You've made up some good "fauxtistics." And even making things up… your conclusion is the same as what I've been saying: the gap that was 43% (79-36) is now 20% (3/5 - 2/5). The better putter's advantage, the gap, is decreased.
The large hole test doesn't replicate the bouncing ball hypothetical at all because it's a test of making things easier as opposed to more difficult.
Maybe. Maybe not. But it shows how easy it can be to have something that seems intuitive actually be the opposite.
Player A hits 100 putts on pure greens. 20 of them dead center. 12 of them go in on the right half, 12 go in on the left half. 10 of them miss just left. 10 of them miss just right. The other 42 putts miss by a couple inches.
Ben, you're literally just making stuff up at this point. You've started with the conclusion, and are just making stuff up to try to support your pre-determined conclusion. Fortunately, it's easy to ignore.
How much skill is involved in flipping a coin? Luck or randomness decreases the effects or influence of skill.
A blanket statement can not be made that randomness always helps the lesser player.
Randomness doesn't really "help" any player. Nobody's said that it does. It narrows the gap, or reduces the influence of skill.
I don't understand the line of thinking that a bigger hole would give the lesser player a bigger advantage. The only reason I thought they should do it is to make casual rounds go faster with more holeouts...
I guess… take it up with Mark. Did you read that part of his book?
And once again, it's not about "helping" or "gaining an advantage" — it's about whether the gap or "separation" would be narrowed or increased.
As Ken has said though...we're talking 0.05oz so not exactly moving to ping pong balls.
Maybe it won't do much. All I'm saying is that, well, I'll just quote myself again:
IF the ruling bodies do eventually do something in this area, I hope they consider and understand ALL of the ramifications.
The JVB article about the "balloon ball" had a 1.55 ounce ball (i.e. only 0.07oz less) and players apparently hated putting with it.
-
"Call John and ask him how random putting can be from 20'. That wasn't a 20-footer, and even at the shorter distance, he missed putts 4 and 6 (and all of putts 7-9 but they weren't ever going in)."
I did and he agreed with you. His video was only about 8 feet.
-
The Paul Runyan story is mentioned in one of Bob Rotella’s books.
"In 1933 Gene Sarazen and some other touring pros decided that there was entirely too much emphasis on the short game, particularly putting. They wanted to redesign golf to favor “shotmaking.” So they prevailed on the organizers of some winter tournaments in Florida to expand the diameter of the hole from 4 ¼ inches to 8 inches.
The first tournament conducted with the big hole was called the Florida Year-Round Open. Most players began charging every putt. It didn’t work. Sarazen had several three-putt greens. Runyan had no three-putts. He played his normal game on the greens, and won by 11 strokes.
The advocates of the big hole decided this must have been an aberration. They staged another big-hole tournament, this one in Tampa, at match play. The finalists were Paul Runyan and Willie McFarlane, who was also a great short-game player. Runyan won again.
The experiment with the big hole ended abruptly that day. It proved only that there is no getting around the importance of the short game."
~Bob Rotella, Golf Is A Game Of Confidence
Ben,
This debate has gotten so weird that I've sort of lost track, but your point with this anecdote from Rotella's book just escapes me; I don't think it's EVIDENCE for anything. Paul Runyan was a great player, and indeed had a great short game. I've used his Rule of 12 (although it was 11 when he developed it) for chipping for 35 years now; I can't believe more ams don't use it.
But Runyan won 9 times in 1933, and that doesn't even include two tournaments Rotella references; it was the best year of his career, so it wasn't like he was a plumber except when there was a big hole. Then or now, to win 9 times on the PGA Tour is some pretty serious ball striking; there is just no other way, because those guys ALL have good short games.
If Rotella's point is that the short game is important, then he is, of course, correct, and Runyan is as good an example of that as ever played the game. But this particular anecdote, absent a LOT more information about those weeks, just doesn't mean a thing, does it? For instance, when he says the other guys "began charging every putt" that doesn't really mean anything unless you see some "before and after" stats, does it?
I just don't get it.
-
Erik,
The large hole test doesn't replicate the bouncing ball hypothetical at all because it's a test of making things easier as opposed to more difficult.
Sully nails it!
-
AG,
The Rotella quote was a follow-up to a previous post that might provide more context. (#635)
Runyan winning on the large hole illustrates that the larger hole did not provide an advantage to weaker putters, which is what Sarazen incorrectly hoped would happen. Of Runyan's 7 stroke play individual victories that year, his winning margins were as follows:
- 2 strokes
- 10 strokes
- 4 strokes
- 2 strokes
- 1 stroke
- Tie
- 3 strokes
The one that stands out the most was his dominant performance on the 6-inch cup. Not only did the large hole fail to provide an equalizer for lesser putters, it helped a great putter distance themselves even more.
-
Erik,
I believe you are depending on Brodie's result for total putts improving to make your argument. With a larger hole the poorer putter has a much greater chance of his second putt going in, thereby gaining advantage in lowering his total putts. With randomness, the poorer putter will miss more often, as will the better putter. So Broadie doesn't apply, as the result of randomness is directly opposed in results to larger hole results.
Everyone else has rightly been discussing the holing of a single putt, which you label as just making things up.
You are the king of just making things up as witnessed by your making up a correlation of Broadie's work to this issue.
-
We messed around with the larger holes a few years ago.
For what it’s worth. I was a very good putter from 0-5 feet. Mediocre by tour standards from 6-20
Rarely three putted
I could not miss from 10 feet and in
But more important. I holed chips and pitches often. It was easy to be aggressive and go at these tubs because my short putts of 6 feet and less were gimmes
my students who were mini tour and club champion type players saw little gains. Made some more long putts, but made aggressive errors too.
I grew up on great greens, and I don’t think it is a coincidence I -payed my best in Australia. Being on perfect fast greens made putting easier for me, and I consider myself “mediocre” by tour player standards
-
I believe you are depending on Brodie's result for total putts improving to make your argument.
I used Broadie's analysis of the effects of a larger hole to demonstrate that what many think is the obvious answer is often the opposite of what's true, just like how more random bounces on a green would narrow the gap between the best and worst putters. I didn't make up what Broadie wrote; I quoted it. If you want to talk about that (off-topic) subject, maybe take it up with Mark?
When you increase luck/randomness, you decrease the role of skill in determining the outcome. There's no skill in Plinko, or in flipping a true coin, and that's basically all I've been saying here. If the ruling bodies roll the ball back by making it lighter, I just want them to be aware of all that it will affect.
Rob, credit where due to you for your post a few up. John stopped bowling because he was tired of how "random" it seemed to him at the time, and I laughed and said "So now you teach putting?!?!?"
-
...
The fun in golf is not relative to the distance one is able to get out of the equipment, but rather shot-making ability relative to the course on which one is playing.
...
-
Some fascinating comments from Patrick Cantlay recently regarding distance...
“Theoretically, the golf ball needs to go shorter,” he continued, “Every golf course I go to has different tee boxes farther back than even 4-5 years ago when I visited the golf course. It’s getting to the point where the tee boxes are already to the perimeter of the property, so much so that Augusta National has been buying up all the adjacent pieces of property so they can put more tee boxes and change the holes.
“That’s not sustainable. Not only that if pace of play is one of your biggest concerns, how many golf course do I go to on Tour where the tees are 100 yards back? They can’t keep going in this direction.
Cantlay added: “The technology isn’t only better but young guys are trying to hit it farther and farther because the stats say the farther I hit it, the better I’ll play. Something has to give.
“I think the biggest shame is that I can’t go to Cypress Point and play the course the way the designer designed the golf course to be played. The biggest problem for me is when we lose the architectural integrity of the golf course. We’re to the point where that’s where we are. Something has to give.”
-
On another thread we have another professional golfer getting slaughtered for being selfish. So do we do the same with Cantlay for selfishly wanting the ball restricted so he, a professional golfer, can play Cypress Point "the way the designer designed the course to be played" irrespective that it would turn it into a slog for the majority of us ?
Niall
ps. if he truly wanted to play it the way the architect anticipated it would be played should he not just go and buy some equipment from the 1920's ? I'm sure some of you hickory enthusiasts could help him out ;D
-
Some fascinating comments from Patrick Cantlay recently regarding distance...
Your bar for "fascinating" is seemingly very low.
-
On another thread we have another professional golfer getting slaughtered for being selfish. So do we do the same with Cantlay for selfishly wanting the ball restricted so he, a professional golfer, can play Cypress Point "the way the designer designed the course to be played" irrespective that it would turn it into a slog for the majority of us ?
Niall
ps. if he truly wanted to play it the way the architect anticipated it would be played should he not just go and buy some equipment from the 1920's ? I'm sure some of you hickory enthusiasts could help him out ;D
My guess is that even 1950s through maybe 1980's clubs and balls would work almost as well. While there was some distance progress, I believe it accelerated the most around 1997 with the intro of the ProV.
But your is an interesting discussion. Rather than spend millions on extending courses, or even rolling back all ball and club tech, why not just manufacture (or save from closets) a variety of clubs and balls. In essence, it's the implement equivalent to forward and back tees in course design, no? I'm sure the molds for many of those old clubs are still out there, maybe in use for starter sets, etc. And, longer hitters could just use the Noodle or some other soft ball that would not go as far.
Maybe some creative tournament would be played with old clubs and balls, or maybe have all 4 days played with different equipment for variety? Yes, most pros would hate it, and you might get the bottom 100 players who would still play for the check, but would that be any different than some other silly season events, like Father-Son, PGA-LPGA, Skins game, etc.? To me, that would seem interesting to most golf watchers at least once a year.
-
Thanks for posting this Matthew.
As an aside worth mentioning Tiger comment in an TV discussion with Nantes/Faldo last week about the driver head size and the distance issue “Add spin to the golf ball. That’s a way to shorten it up as well.”.
Just repeating a great players words.
Make of them what you wish.
As for now it seems that golfers as a collective specie will go on spending more money on equipment that makes the ball go further while also carrying on spending more money on making golf courses longer.
Atb
-
A great player who more than anyone benefitted from advances in technology and now that his competitive career is basically over he's "repenting". Do me a favour. Give him a set of hickories and tell him to join Patrick Cantlay on the first tee and leave the rest of us to enjoy the feeling of being able to get the ball airborne and a decent distance.
Anyway, this Rollback Alliance, have you managed to agree amongst yourselves yet as to what era you're going to go back to ? ;)
Niall
-
A great player who more than anyone benefitted from advances in technology and now that his competitive career is basically over he's "repenting".
Tiger?
The opposite is more true.
-
Two ways of looking at it;
Financially - there really can't be many who earned more for promoting new equipment
Playing - the difference between the tiger and the rabbit is probably wider now than it has ever been and a lot of that is to do with equipment. Given Tiger was at the top for for so long how could he not have benefitted more than any ?
Niall
-
Two ways of looking at it;
Financially - there really can't be many who earned more for promoting new equipment
Playing - the difference between the tiger and the rabbit is probably wider now than it has ever been and a lot of that is to do with equipment. Given Tiger was at the top for for so long how could he not have benefitted more than any ?
Niall
Niall,
I don't think Tiger's primary advantage was length off the tee, even if it was one for most of his career.
His primary advantage was being absolutely clutch, and no moment being too big for him. He just flat out hit great shots when it mattered the most, (with every club in the bag), and almost never came back to the field when he had a lead. Ernie Els was certainly not alone in feeling intimidated every time he teed it up against him, even if one of the few to admit it. In his prime a Tiger stare down was all that was needed to make most fold like a cheap suit.
-
If drivers heads had been capped at 300cc all these years, Tiger could have won 20+ majors. All any observant golfer need do is look back at the '97 Masters to see how the equipment of that era enabled him to parlay his superiority with irons/wedges/putter with his power off the tee.
Tiger became a less extraordinary driver of the golf ball as heads swelled because it takes less skill to hit a 460cc driver far and straight than it does to do the same with a 275cc driver. We don't need data to know that's true.
-
Playing - the difference between the tiger and the rabbit is probably wider now than it has ever been and a lot of that is to do with equipment. Given Tiger was at the top for for so long how could he not have benefitted more than any ?
No, the opposite is more true.
I'd die on the hill that you're wrong here. Because you are.
More forgiving equipment does more to elevate the "B" level players than it ever does to help the A or A+ players.
-
Playing - the difference between the tiger and the rabbit is probably wider now than it has ever been and a lot of that is to do with equipment. Given Tiger was at the top for for so long how could he not have benefitted more than any ?
No, the opposite is more true.
I'd die on the hill that you're wrong here. Because you are.
More forgiving equipment does more to elevate the "B" level players than it ever does to help the A or A+ players.
It’s not often I agree with EJB but I do on this aspect.
Atb
-
Love it. Perhaps Kalen and Tim can sort out between themselves whether Tiger was a great player because he could hit it a long way or not.
Erik - well since you boldly state you are right then you must be and never mind the facts. ;D
David - if Erik is correct and lesser players are elevated (which I accept by the way, but just not that they are elevated more than the very top guys) then perhaps you can tell us why that is necessarily a bad thing ?
Niall
-
Erik - well since you boldly state you are right then you must be and never mind the facts. ;D
Virtually everyone is on the same side as me, including Jack, Tiger, etc.
And I realize that's a bit of an "appeal to authority," in a way, but here's the main thing: you mentioned "facts" but you haven't shared any facts that back you up. The truth is that if your game is closer to "the best ever," there's not a lot that equipment can help you do. "Game improvement" clubs and technology doesn't do much when your game can't be improved much.
David - if Erik is correct and lesser players are elevated (which I accept by the way, but just not that they are elevated more than the very top guys) then perhaps you can tell us why that is necessarily a bad thing?
Because it's done by equipment, not by the player simply being "better"?
-
Love it. Perhaps Kalen and Tim can sort out between themselves whether Tiger was a great player because he could hit it a long way or not.
Erik - well since you boldly state you are right then you must be and never mind the facts. ;D
David - if Erik is correct and lesser players are elevated (which I accept by the way, but just not that they are elevated more than the very top guys) then perhaps you can tell us why that is necessarily a bad thing ?
Niall
Niall,
I think its very common for young players who arrive on tour to have massive advantages in distance. In the last 10 years, outside of Jordan Spieth, I can't think of another young player who dominated on tour without being very long in general. So yes Tiger certainly had that. But it was more of the intangibles that account for his greatness, and perhaps the greatest player to ever tee it up. His work ethic, unwavering devotion to the game, killer instincts, as well as the aforementioned being clutch, hitting accurate long irons, and performing in very high pressure situations....it all added up to why he was so dominant, just not his length.
For example:
Bryson De Chambeau, crazy long. in his first 6 years on tour: 9 wins, 1 major. Very very impressive.
Tiger after his first 6 years: 36 wins and 6 majors. Entirely different animal.
-
A great player who more than anyone benefitted from advances in technology and now that his competitive career is basically over he's "repenting".
Tiger?
The opposite is more true.
According to the article in Golf, Tiger did his Tiger slam starting with the solid core ball when no one else had it. That's a pretty big benefit!
-
... leave the rest of us to enjoy the feeling of being able to get the ball airborne and a decent distance.
Find yourself a clubfitter that can bend more loft into your clubs. :)
Anyway, this Rollback Alliance, have you managed to agree amongst yourselves yet as to what era you're going to go back to ? ;)
i think we should take Tiger up on his suggestion to put more spin in the ball! :)
Niall
-
Playing - the difference between the tiger and the rabbit is probably wider now than it has ever been and a lot of that is to do with equipment. Given Tiger was at the top for for so long how could he not have benefitted more than any ?
No, the opposite is more true.
I'd die on the hill that you're wrong here. Because you are.
More forgiving equipment does more to elevate the "B" level players than it ever does to help the A or A+ players.
Define Tiger and Rabbit players.
Define A and B players. You may very well be talking about different things.
-
Define A and B players. You may very well be talking about different things.
We're not.
Better equipment did more to help the B players than the A players of the era. By and large, the better the player, the less benefit he got from advances in technology.
Tiger benefited from advances in equipment less than almost everyone else playing the Tour at the time. When you can hit high long irons, hybrids don't really help. When you don't mis-hit the ball, adding a cavity back or "forgiveness" doesn't help you much, etc.
-
At the bottom, however, D- players didn't get THAT much help either IMHO.
Shanks, tops, chunks, pulls and giant flares don't really change much with typical game-improvement equipment.
-
Shanks, tops, chunks, pulls and giant flares don't really change much with typical game-improvement equipment.
And still, this did more to help those players than it ever would have helped Tiger Woods… to the point that it actually would have hindered Tiger Woods:
(http://ep.yimg.com/ay/yhst-17159114447480/tour-edge-golf-lh-bazooka-jmax-all-hybrid-3-pw-irons-graphite-43.gif)
Of course, those players aren't competing on the PGA Tour, so if we can limit the conversation to just that…
-
Better equipment did more to help the B players than the A players of the era. By and large, the better the player, the less benefit he got from advances in technology.
Tiger benefited from advances in equipment less than almost everyone else playing the Tour at the time. When you can hit high long irons, hybrids don't really help. When you don't mis-hit the ball, adding a cavity back or "forgiveness" doesn't help you much, etc.
I believe Nick Price has said the same. Perimeter weighted irons closed the gap between good and bad ball strikers.
-
Shanks, tops, chunks, pulls and giant flares don't really change much with typical game-improvement equipment.
And still, this did more to help those players than it ever would have helped Tiger Woods… to the point that it actually would have hindered Tiger Woods:
(http://ep.yimg.com/ay/yhst-17159114447480/tour-edge-golf-lh-bazooka-jmax-all-hybrid-3-pw-irons-graphite-43.gif)
Of course, those players aren't competing on the PGA Tour, so if we can limit the conversation to just that…
You guys have understand that Erik has to sling this particular line of BS, because he is in the business of selling modern golf junk to D- players.
-
You guys have understand that Erik has to sling this particular line of BS, because he is in the business of selling modern golf junk to D- players.
I don't sell equipment, Garland.
And from what I hear of your game, you aspire to be a D- player.
-
Shanks, tops, chunks, pulls and giant flares don't really change much with typical game-improvement equipment.
And still, this did more to help those players than it ever would have helped Tiger Woods… to the point that it actually would have hindered Tiger Woods:
(http://ep.yimg.com/ay/yhst-17159114447480/tour-edge-golf-lh-bazooka-jmax-all-hybrid-3-pw-irons-graphite-43.gif)
Of course, those players aren't competing on the PGA Tour, so if we can limit the conversation to just that…
You guys have understand that Erik has to sling this particular line of BS, because he is in the business of selling modern golf junk to D- players.
Garland-I thought Erik sold dreams. ;)
-
I've always heard that selling modern golf equipment was the perfect business model--selling drugs to addicts.
-
Playing - the difference between the tiger and the rabbit is probably wider now than it has ever been and a lot of that is to do with equipment. Given Tiger was at the top for for so long how could he not have benefitted more than any ?
No, the opposite is more true.
I'd die on the hill that you're wrong here. Because you are.
More forgiving equipment does more to elevate the "B" level players than it ever does to help the A or A+ players.
Agreed.
The difference between the Tiger and the rabbit is narrower than it has ever been.
Just look at this weeks leaderboard.
Two guys who survived via a 16 for 1 playoff on Tuesday made the cut and one is T-6.
Hitting it long is a skill that many more possess than ever due to many things including equipment.
If everybody starts the hole on average 140 and in, vs. 180 and in, the players are far more likley to bunch up, and it's harder to separate greats from very goods.
With Tiger's previous driving and iron skill, if they were playing old equipment, he'd hit it past you AND put it inside you.
Even as he aged he'd still put his iron inside you if they were all playing from further out, but once it became a wedge contest for many/most, a different breed emerged and changes constantly.
-
Where I wish the lines had been drawn:
>No flex-face metal woods or irons
>350cc max head size
>Balls of similar spin rates as the Titleist Professional
I think the game comes back to the scale we saw from the late ‘40s through the ‘90s. Impact would be felt more significantly at the top of the game than the bottom.
-
Playing - the difference between the tiger and the rabbit is probably wider now than it has ever been and a lot of that is to do with equipment. Given Tiger was at the top for for so long how could he not have benefitted more than any ?
No, the opposite is more true.
I'd die on the hill that you're wrong here. Because you are.
More forgiving equipment does more to elevate the "B" level players than it ever does to help the A or A+ players.
Agreed.
The difference between the Tiger and the rabbit is narrower than it has ever been.
Just look at this weeks leaderboard.
Two guys who survived via a 16 for 1 playoff on Tuesday made the cut and one is T-6.
Hitting it long is a skill that many more possess than ever due to many things including equipment.
If everybody starts the hole on average 140 and in, vs. 180 and in, the players are far more likley to bunch up, and it's harder to separate greats from very goods.
With Tiger's previous driving and iron skill, if they were playing old equipment, he'd hit it past you AND put it inside you.
Even as he aged he'd still put his iron inside you if they were all playing from further out, but once it became a wedge contest for many/most, a different breed emerged and changes constantly.
Jeff
We clearly have different views on what defines a rabbit.
Niall
-
Define A and B players. You may very well be talking about different things.
We're not.
...
More ignorance from Erik. Doesn't bother to ask Niall what he meant by rabbit, doesn't know the literature on golf where rabbits are more akin to what Ken labeled D- players.
The worst thing is that he seems to take golf industry hype as gospel.
-
Jeff
We clearly have different views on what defines a rabbit.
Niall
FWIW, I think we are talking about the difference between a +3 index and a +7 or +8.
There are damned few PGA Tour player with handicaps higher than +4
FWIW, GHIN allows you to look up an index if you know what state they play in and quite a few pros are carrying handicaps these days so they can play in games at home with the locals. I've recently looked a few up and found one at +5.1 (he shot 58 ay mom's club), a +7.5 Whisper Rock member at and a +8.4 at Oak Tree National.
Colt Knost, who didn't stay out there recently said on PGA Tour Radio he was a +2.8 at Whisper Rock and getting 2 a side from Max Homa.
So are there guys on Tour who are able to stick because the GI clubs helped them a shot a round while only making a half a shot difference to the best players? Beats the hell out of me.
But I do think that GI clubs help players from about a 10 handicap down to just under scratch more than they help players outside that range.
I am sure that most bogey golfers are getting damned little help from modern clubs, because I play with them 4 times a week. They (we) hit too many simply despicable shots that nothing will help. And they result in our big numbers.
When we make good swings, we often hit the middle of the face, and an old blade would result in a good shot. Now, I DO think that graphite shafted irons with light shafts make a difference, if only because they allow old farts like me to still swing the club.
-
Jeff,
Are you sure that hitting it long is not more the result of Tiger making it financially lucrative to put in the hours to develop the skill than it is the result of making equipment that allows others to better approximate his results?
-
Jeff
My reference to rabbits was meant in the way it was meant back in the day when the term was coined to refer to your average hacker. It wasn't a reference to the not quite so good elite golfer.
Niall
-
I think the other thing at play is.
A 6 stroke gap between say a 12 and 18 HC isn't that wide in terms of ability or otherwise. The 12 may just be a better course manager and incurs fewer easily avoided penalty strokes.
But a 6 stroke gap between a +4 and 2, is a far larger huge chasm I suspect, in how they're able to navigate the course and save pars even when playing poorly.
-
I think the other thing at play is.
A 6 stroke gap between say a 12 and 18 HC isn't that wide in terms of ability or otherwise. The 12 may just be a better course manager and incurs fewer easily avoided penalty strokes.
But a 6 stroke gap between a +4 and 2, is a far larger huge chasm I suspect, in how they're able to navigate the course and save pars even when playing poorly.
I’ve been a 2 and I’ve seen plenty of +4s at USGA championships and it isn’t even close.
-
I think the other thing at play is.
A 6 stroke gap between say a 12 and 18 HC isn't that wide in terms of ability or otherwise. The 12 may just be a better course manager and incurs fewer easily avoided penalty strokes.
But a 6 stroke gap between a +4 and 2, is a far larger huge chasm I suspect, in how they're able to navigate the course and save pars even when playing poorly.
I’ve been a 2 and I’ve seen plenty of +4s at USGA championships and it isn’t even close.
You go John! Kalen has only a vague idea of what a 2 or +4 would be like, let alone knowing course management.
Kalen, you are one of those D- players Ken referred to, and one of those rabbits that Niall referred to. You don't manage the course, it manages you and I. We just take what we can get from what management it affords us, including the walkers on paths presumably out of play that help you find your ball. ;D
-
Garland,
Speak for yourself. John confirmed what I already suspected to be true, because I've never played with a +4 calibur player, nor seen them much up close.
But over the years I regularly played with two very good players who oscillated between 1 and 3 and they both had me caddy for them in local tournaments because they appreciated how I saw the course and thought thru the options. One guy typically played too aggressive and wanted me to help think thru safer options, and for the other one it was visa versa. Plus it didn't hurt that I putted as well as either of them, so they knew I could read greens.
-
More ignorance from Erik. Doesn't bother to ask Niall what he meant by rabbit, doesn't know the literature on golf where rabbits are more akin to what Ken labeled D- players.
And Garland, the next time you intelligently discuss the topic instead of taking a shot may be the first.
I don't care how you define "rabbits" or "B" players, technology has done more to help that player than it has helped Tiger Woods. And since we're talking about the players Tiger plays against, we're not discussing 20 handicappers.
-
More ignorance from Erik. Doesn't bother to ask Niall what he meant by rabbit, doesn't know the literature on golf where rabbits are more akin to what Ken labeled D- players.
And Garland, the next time you intelligently discuss the topic instead of taking a shot may be the first.
I don't care how you define "rabbits" or "B" players, technology has done more to help that player than it has helped Tiger Woods. And since we're talking about the players Tiger plays against, we're not discussing 20 handicappers.
Do you have any peer reviewed scientific studies to back up your claims? Anything published by a golf equipment supplier is automatically suspect.
Technology has made golf clubs longer. That has made the rabbit play better? Seems illogical to me.
Personally when I returned to golf after a long layoff, I put away the blades, which is all that were available when I played as a youngster, and got some super game improvement irons. The more I played them the worse my scores got. There are pros that say that if you want to improve, you have to hit clubs that don't forgive your bad swings, but rather force you to make better swings. That makes logical sense to me. So called game improvement clubs serve more as score rescue clubs for some players. They don't improve their swings or games one bit. They just let them score a little better with their inadequate swings.
-
...
I don't care how you define "rabbits" or "B" players, technology has done more to help that player than it has helped Tiger Woods. And since we're talking about the players Tiger plays against, we're not discussing 20 handicappers.
You need to care about how "rabbits" and "B players" are defined, because they are different, and no one knows who you are referring to by "that player". ::)
-
Do you have any peer reviewed scientific studies to back up your claims?
I must have missed the part where you posted those types of things supporting your side of things.
I'm applying logic here, and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Again, your game can't be improved much (because it's the best ever), "game improvement" technology isn't going to improve your game very much. There's much less room to do so.
If you can hit a sky-high 3I, a hybrid won't help you as much as it can help someone who otherwise does not have that shot from 245 (or whatever). Equipment is yet another reason why Tiger > Jack.
Additionally, and I'm not the biggest fan of "appeal to authority" type arguments, plenty of Tour players have said the same things: equipment does more to help the guy ranked 150th in the world than the guy ranked 1st in the world.
-
Do you have any peer reviewed scientific studies to back up your claims?
I must have missed the part where you posted those types of things supporting your side of things.
From time to time, I have tried to search for appropriate info in research journals, but they make it to difficult access. At one time, I joined a clubfitters forum, and asked them where is the scientific evidence for the things they claimed. Either, there was none, or they were not interested in finding any, because they could not come up with any.
I'm applying logic here,
What logic are you applying? I haven't seen any explicit call to recognize the logic of your claims.
and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
If you only consider a few factors, then you need to have additional factors pointed out. For example, golf boomed after Tiger came on the scene. It became more valuable to practice and train more to reap the rewards brought about by the excessively increased money available from that boom. How can you be sure that technology has allowed the B players to narrow the gap in that environment. Maybe there are just more A and A+ players making it to the top, and continuing to crowd out the B players.
Again, your game can't be improved much (because it's the best ever), "game improvement" technology isn't going to improve your game very much. There's much less room to do so.
I'll have to take "your game" to mean the game of the those at the peak of the profession. Your statement make much sense when addressing your comments to me.
If you can hit a sky-high 3I, a hybrid won't help you as much as it can help someone who otherwise does not have that shot from 245 (or whatever).
The better able you are to find the sweet spot with your swings, the more you benefit you get from spring face drivers. Supposedly they have increased the area that approximates the sweet spot, but I doubt not hitting the ideal sweet spot performs as well as hitting the ideal sweet spot. Therefore, A+ players gain over A players who gain over A- players who gain over B+ players who gain over B players ... F players. Seems logical to me. Furthermore, these players benefit from lighter equipment and longer shafts analogously. So called game improvement irons have been around for quite awhile now. I don't recall tour pros adopting them in the early years. However, in more recent years there has been the development of thin faced irons with spring like effect. Sure, these thin faced irons have allowed the weighting to be moved even further to the perimeter for so called game improvement. Are the tour pros that use them gaining from the perimeter weighting, or from the springiness of the face?
Equipment is yet another reason why Tiger > Jack.
Tiger is greater than Jack, because Tiger had better equipment to use? Balderdash!
Additionally, and I'm not the biggest fan of "appeal to authority" type arguments, plenty of Tour players have said the same things: equipment does more to help the guy ranked 150th in the world than the guy ranked 1st in the world.
Yes, all those college drop outs and guys with just HS diplomas are doing great science, and voicing their results. Yeah, I'd go with them. ::)
-
If you quote and reply properly, I'm not going to do the work for you.
-
It's an interesting conversation, recently.
Erik,
Do you believe the 100th ranked player is light years ahead of the standard 12 handicapper?
Garland,
Do you believe the 100th ranked player in Jack's days would have closed the gap if he had a hybrid to hit from 225 instead of trying to hit a 2 iron/4 wood?
-
...
Do you believe the 100th ranked player in Jack's days would have closed the gap if he had a hybrid to hit from 225 instead of trying to hit a 2 iron/4 wood?
I believe that if both the 100th ranked player in Jack's day, and Jack played with modern equipment, Jack would have increased the gap. Does that answer the question you were getting at?
-
Do you believe the 100th ranked player is light years ahead of the standard 12 handicapper?
I'm not going to ask you to define "light years," but yeah, they're way ahead.
Do you believe the 100th ranked player in Jack's days would have closed the gap if he had a hybrid to hit from 225 instead of trying to hit a 2 iron/4 wood?
Exactly. Equipment has helped that player more than it's helped the Jack/Tiger level players (or the ten players nearest to them, if you're putting them on a level where they're the only two).
I believe that if both the 100th ranked player in Jack's day, and Jack played with modern equipment, Jack would have increased the gap. Does that answer the question you were getting at?
No.