Lets take a closer look at distance off the Tee....

[Sandhurst241069]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > This aspect is often overlooked;

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> Where did that graph come from? I think I know, but I am just going to ask it as a straight question for now.

>

> I don't see a whole lot of correlation between the two data lines. I see coincidence. And what we all know beyond any sensible question is that the big rise in golf distance occurred with (first) solid core multilayer urethane balls and then with (second) the further development of 460cc driver heads and longer composite shafts.

>

> I like firm, fast, bouncy, racy fairways. It creates interest in the ground game. Tour pros don't usually think of firm fast fairways as easy. They think that they add difficulty to their game.

>

> As always and as I have specifically mentioned in this thread, nobody (that is, nobody in golf's ruling bodies) cares about "agronomy" or "fitness" or "launch monitors" or "swing speeds." All they care about is evidence of increasing distance, which is now coming in and is beyond dispute. That's it.

>

>

Yep faster, firmer conditions equals better golf .. Its actually soft conditions like Bethpage and Medinah that better hold up a mirror to the problem..

 

[beluga99]

What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

[15th Club]

> @beluga99 said:

> What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

 

 

About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

 

[beluga99]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @beluga99 said:

> > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

>

>

> About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

>

 

Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

[15th Club]

> @beluga99 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @beluga99 said:

> > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> >

> >

> > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> >

>

> Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

 

 

 

Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

 

If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

 

And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

 

 

[Shilgy]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @beluga99 said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > >

> > >

> > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > >

> >

> > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

>

>

>

> Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

>

> If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

>

> And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

>

>

 

So that means tour players are “fantastically skilled” “ journeymen “?

 

I get both sides of this. There are old courses that are played in a different style than they once were. Heck, you could almost say they play a game with which I am not familiar.

 

 

[clevited]

> @bscinstnct said:

> ”I don't think that a good Pro need to average 300 yards to compete on any track..“

>

>

> I would venture a guess that 15 of the top 20 owgr average 300 yards or more.

>

> And if you look at 1,2,3 owgr,

>

> BK-309

> Rory-313

> DJ-312

>

>

> It’s crazy, they all hit it 300. Even old man back fused tiger averaged 297.

>

> I would think we are close to a threshold. But it’s not that they can’t hit it farther, there are just limits to keeping it in reasonable play if you keep hitting it farther.

>

> I remember JB said on this episode of playing lessons with the pros (Stephanie Sparks! Oof ; ) way back that when he first came on tour, he would have no problem hitting his draw 330 *carry* but he couldn’t control it enough so he went to a fade. If you look at his first full season in 2006, he average 318. Five years later he was at 307.

>

>

>

>

>

 

Man, this topic again. This guy nails it with what holmes said. A few things to think about with this.

 

-this is a problem only with people who PERCEIVE it to be a problem. Most don't have any problem with the distance guys hit it whatsoever, and in fact, they love it. Its gutsy and amazing imo to see these guys crush it like that and keep it in play. Last time I checked, it takes an extreme amount of skill to do that especially when shaping the shot and or wind comes into play.

 

-there is a limit to how beneficial distance is. Going much beyond 300 yards average isn't that helpful. Diminishing returns, think about it.

 

-a golf course does not NEED to be played as intended. Lowest score wins. How you like to see the game played is personal preference, not rules to play by.

 

-players will always gravitate towards the style of play that most often nets the best results. Learning to hit the ball further and accurately has become a big part of the game. Much like the NFL becoming very pass heavy over the years.

 

-making driver heads smaller will help with the percieved problem? Not necessarily and tbh, highly doubtful. I don't know a single pro that has trouble hitting their fairway wood in the middle and with a nice full swing. It would hurt the average weekend player though.

 

-the HAVING TO make courses longer excuse for wanting to monitor and address distance is self defeating. Making courses longer NECESSITATES longer driving thus making a percieved problem worse and worse.

 

-there is a limit to the distance anyone can even hit the ball. Look at long drive guys on tv. They can't keep most of those in play on what would be considered a decently wide tour fairway. 1 degree off and its offline and curving further offline due to side spin. Also, a ball in the air for 9 seconds tends to move a lot from wind. Dangerous to try and hit it that far on almost any golf course.

 

There are more things but that is just some of the best ones.

 

Btw, with 15th in this thread again this horse will get beaten to death forever. Please lock it now mods. This will not go anywhere positive I promise you all.

[clevited]

Just a fun addition.

 

[Sandhurst241069]

 

 

> @clevited said:

> Just a fun addition.

>

>

 

Geoff Shack wanting Scotty to beam him up ...

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @beluga99 said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > >

> > >

> > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > >

> >

> > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

>

>

>

> Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

>

> If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

>

> And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

>

>

 

I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

 

Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

 

 

 

[15th Club]

> @clevited said:

> Just a fun addition.

>

>

 

 

Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

 

How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

 

What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

 

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @clevited said:

> > Just a fun addition.

> >

> >

>

>

> Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

>

> How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

>

> What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

>

>

>

 

What an arrogant statement.... no one around the tee boxes huh?? (see below) what a tool. The reason there are not as many around the tee boxes is because there is simply not enough room.. I will use the words you said to me before. "if you do not like the current game, you are welcome to go play a different one".

 

This idea that you can only roll the ball back is soo wrong it twist my head. There are hundreds of other things you can do.

 

 

 

[15th Club]

QuigleyDU;

 

Thanks for the time and effort you put into your post. What it seems to show -- entirely apart from spin numbers -- is that a Pro V1 just goes significantly farther than a Titliest from 20 years ago. Far be it from me, to dispute that. It would go a long way toward explaining why Jack Nicklaus in his prime hit 5i in the range of 170-185 yards, and Brooks Koepka hits 5i 212-225. (Stipulated: there is a shaft length difference, and a loft difference, between Koepka's Mizunos and Nicklaus' MacGregor irons.)

 

I am very much open to the notion that the USGA's Initial Velocity testing and its Overall Distance Standard have fundamentally failed to produce the intended results in actual elite level play.

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > Just a fun addition.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

> >

> > How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

> >

> > What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

> >

> >

> >

>

> What an arrogant statement....

 

 

 

So not only does Shackelford know more about golf course architecture than all of them combined, he's proven it in print, in no fewer than nine books on the subject.

 

Doubled. Down.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> QuigleyDU;

>

> Thanks for the time and effort you put into your post. What it seems to show -- entirely apart from spin numbers -- is that a Pro V1 just goes significantly farther than a Titliest from 20 years ago. Far be it from me, to dispute that. It would go a long way toward explaining why Jack Nicklaus in his prime hit 5i in the range of 170-185 yards, and Brooks Koepka hits 5i 212-225. (Stipulated: there is a shaft length difference, and a loft difference, between Koepka's Mizunos and Nicklaus' MacGregor irons.)

>

> I am very much open to the notion that the USGA's Initial Velocity testing and its Overall Distance Standard have fundamentally failed to produce the intended results in actual elite level play.

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > Just a fun addition.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Oh thanks for posting that. That is so beautiful. Five pros or quasi-pros, several of them literally under contract to Titleist/FJ/Acushnet (and Callaway), fighting with Geoff Shackelford who **knows more about golf course architecture than all of them combined**. Five versus one, in the case of Shackelford, isn't even a fair fight.

> > >

> > > How many Acushnet logos in that video? Charlie Rymer has his FJ on display; Michael Breed looks like an Acushnet NASCAR driver.

> > >

> > > What a bunch of tools. There isn't a golf course in the country that could not be set up overnight to play beautifully at 5800 yards for a rolled back golf ball. And there are damned few golf courses anywhere in the world that play properly for modern elite-level players unless they are tweaked to the limit.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > What an arrogant statement....

>

>

>

> So not only does Shackelford know more about golf course architecture than all of them combined, he's proven it in print, in no fewer than nine books on the subject.

>

> Doubled. Down.

 

I will give you Paige.. I don't know why she is even part of this discussion. Worst golf ambassador ever. But writing a book(s) does not make you an expert... Sorry.

[Krt22]

> @"15th Club" said:

> QuigleyDU;

>

> Thanks for the time and effort you put into your post. What it seems to show -- entirely apart from spin numbers -- is that a Pro V1 just goes significantly farther than a Titliest from 20 years ago. Far be it from me, to dispute that. It would go a long way toward explaining why Jack Nicklaus in his prime hit 5i in the range of 170-185 yards, and Brooks Koepka hits 5i 212-225. (Stipulated: there is a shaft length difference, and a loft difference, between Koepka's Mizunos and Nicklaus' MacGregor irons.)

>

 

Yeah "significant" is not quite the word most would use when talking about a 4% increase in performance over a~ 20 year span if you look at the actual numbers posted. The distance delta you claim is not at all explained by Quigley's post.

[clevited]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> >

> >

> >

> > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> >

> > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> >

> > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> >

> >

>

> I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

>

> Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> Looking at the data I would say 17 yards gain in 20 years is relatively nothing. There is so much that goes into those numbers that it’s not the ball, it’s not drivers it’s the players. It’s all of it. Goodnight.

 

I would say you are wrong. That is statistically very significant.

 

Also, the list just shows the top guy and the OP mentioned that rarely was the leader the #1 ranked player in the world. Probably true. But it is not just one guy way at the top and everybody else staying the same (exception might be with Daly in a year or three on the list). The whole tour average has gone up. The top 10, 15, 20 players' averages have all gone up. If you averaged around 280 fifteen years ago you were near the top. If you average 280 now my guess is you are near the middle or below the average.

 

A 7000 yard course used to be long for these guys. 7500, if we are being honest about it, is probably where we need to start to actually challenge them and keep shot values somewhat in-line with what they were hitting into greens 20 years ago.

[Golfnutgalen]

Only 11 yards between the pro v1 and the 90 with driver and half that with an iron. Definitely surprised at the near identical spin numbers. So just a change in the golf ball presuming everyone would be affected the same way (not a safe assumption) would bring us back to 2002-03 levels of driving distance.

[QuigleyDU]

> @clevited said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> > >

> > > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> > >

> > > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

> >

> > Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

 

 

 

That part could be true. I don't know. I am just simply saying that everyone is looking back at balatas with rose colored glasses. Thinking they spun more is not really correct. Off the driver, maybe a touch.

 

Like I have been trying to say all along, there is sooooooooooo much more to the equation than just the ball. For every mile per hour of club head speed increase it is about 3 yard gain in distance. If you look at the numbers originally posted. that equals about 5 miles per more in club head speed. Which that number or more is easily visible on tour. They are all swinging faster. There are way more tour pros at our near 120 club head speed than in the past. That is why there are a lot more out there hitting it further. It is not just the ball.

 

 

[clevited]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> > > >

> > > > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> > > >

> > > > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

> > >

> > > Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

>

>

>

> That part could be true. I don't know. I am just simply saying that everyone is looking back at balatas with rose colored glasses. Thinking they spun more is not really correct. Off the driver, maybe a touch.

>

> Like I have been trying to say all along, there is sooooooooooo much more to the equation than just the ball. For every mile per hour of club head speed increase it is about 3 yard gain in distance. If you look at the numbers originally posted. that equals about 5 miles per more in club head speed. Which that number or more is easily visible on tour. They are all swinging faster. There are way more tour pros at our near 120 club head speed than in the past. That is why there are a lot more out there hitting it further. It is not just the ball.

>

>

 

Yep, hear what you are saying and I agree. Just for fun, here is the advertisement I was speaking of.

 

 

[Krt22]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> > > >

> > > > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> > > >

> > > > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

> > >

> > > Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

>

>

>

> That part could be true. I don't know. I am just simply saying that everyone is looking back at balatas with rose colored glasses. Thinking they spun more is not really correct. Off the driver, maybe a touch.

>

> Like I have been trying to say all along, there is sooooooooooo much more to the equation than just the ball. For every mile per hour of club head speed increase it is about 3 yard gain in distance. If you look at the numbers originally posted. that equals about 5 miles per more in club head speed. Which that number or more is easily visible on tour. They are all swinging faster. There are way more tour pros at our near 120 club head speed than in the past. That is why there are a lot more out there hitting it further. It is not just the ball.

>

>

 

Yep. Easy to point the finger at the ball/clubs, but I think most folks who are most critical of the modern game are just disgruntled that the modern tour player has athleticism that they simply do not (not now and perhaps not ever). And they point at the equipment being the reason for the distance gains, but also completely ignore how modern pros and elite players use technology and fitness to hit the ball further (ie radar based launch monitors, pressure plates, 3D, overspeed training etc) by both optimizing launch conditions and optimizing speed. Sure the clubs may help in terms of off center hit forgiveness, but to have near perfect impact while swinging 120+ is incredible. In the past there were some players who really did "find it in the dirt" and thus had an advantage over the field, modern tech just makes that search much more clinical.

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> But writing a book(s) does not make you an expert... Sorry.

 

Wow. When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> > > > >

> > > > > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> > > > >

> > > > > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

> > > >

> > > > Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

> >

> >

> >

> > That part could be true. I don't know. I am just simply saying that everyone is looking back at balatas with rose colored glasses. Thinking they spun more is not really correct. Off the driver, maybe a touch.

> >

> > Like I have been trying to say all along, there is sooooooooooo much more to the equation than just the ball. For every mile per hour of club head speed increase it is about 3 yard gain in distance. If you look at the numbers originally posted. that equals about 5 miles per more in club head speed. Which that number or more is easily visible on tour. They are all swinging faster. There are way more tour pros at our near 120 club head speed than in the past. That is why there are a lot more out there hitting it further. It is not just the ball.

> >

> >

>

> Yep. Easy to point the finger at the ball/clubs, but I think most folks who are most critical of the modern game are just disgruntled that the modern tour player has athleticism that they simply do not (not now and perhaps not ever). And they point at the equipment being the reason for the distance gains, but also completely ignore how modern pros and elite players use technology and fitness to hit the ball further (ie radar based launch monitors, pressure plates, 3D, overspeed training etc) by both optimizing launch conditions and optimizing speed. Sure the clubs may help in terms of off center hit forgiveness, but to have near perfect impact while swinging 120+ is incredible. In the past there were some players who really did "find it in the dirt" and thus had an advantage over the field, modern tech just makes that search much more clinical.

 

I don't doubt that many including @"15th Club" and Goeff have a deep love for golf course architecture, maybe more so than the actual game of golf.

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > But writing a book(s) does not make you an expert... Sorry.

>

> Wow. When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.

>

 

I certainly didn't/don't see him in any hole. I agree completely with Quigley. Geoff is very narrow minded and cares only about precious course architecture as does our beloved 15th on here. Times change, and reverting back to ye olden days tech wise is insane. Some people have a very subjective issue with how the game is played today, and some people are very sad to see historic courses not on the tour anymore, or being played in a manner they don't like. These are not good reasons at all to make a dramatic negative change to the entire sport.

 

I will add one more thing to this debate and do my best to stay the hell away from this before I get completely sucked in to countering 15th's and others narrow mindedness or misconceptions/misinformation. If the USGA determines it needs to roll the ball back, what will they roll the ball back to? If you think about it, especially with the previously mentioned JB Holmes thing as well as a recent video of Tony Finau showing his true driving capabilities, the ball would need to be rolled back VERY dramatically. Then if you do that, power will become even more of a hot commodity and you will more than likely see more and more people with Cameron Champ like ability rising to the top because it will put an even larger premium on distance. A person also has to remember that the technical manner in which a roll back can happen is problematic. Do you lower ball speed? Do you add more spin? There are ways around both of these. Faster swingers again rise to the top, or you evolve equipment and technique to deal with the higher spin and nothing really changes.

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > But writing a book(s) does not make you an expert... Sorry.

>

> Wow. When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.

>

 

Listen, my point is that on that panel you have a few individuals that I think are pretty knowledgeable. It is arrogant to say he know more than them all put together. That is my point.

[15th Club]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> > > > >

> > > > > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> > > > >

> > > > > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

> > > >

> > > > Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

> >

> >

> >

> > That part could be true. I don't know. I am just simply saying that everyone is looking back at balatas with rose colored glasses. Thinking they spun more is not really correct. Off the driver, maybe a touch.

> >

> > Like I have been trying to say all along, there is sooooooooooo much more to the equation than just the ball. For every mile per hour of club head speed increase it is about 3 yard gain in distance. If you look at the numbers originally posted. that equals about 5 miles per more in club head speed. Which that number or more is easily visible on tour. They are all swinging faster. There are way more tour pros at our near 120 club head speed than in the past. That is why there are a lot more out there hitting it further. It is not just the ball.

> >

> >

>

> Yep. Easy to point the finger at the ball/clubs, but I think most folks who are most critical of the modern game are just disgruntled that the modern tour player has athleticism that they simply do not (not now and perhaps not ever). And they point at the equipment being the reason for the distance gains, but also completely ignore how modern pros and elite players use technology and fitness to hit the ball further (ie radar based launch monitors, pressure plates, 3D, overspeed training etc) by both optimizing launch conditions and optimizing speed. Sure the clubs may help in terms of off center hit forgiveness, but to have near perfect impact while swinging 120+ is incredible. In the past there were some players who really did "find it in the dirt" and thus had an advantage over the field, modern tech just makes that search much more clinical.

 

 

I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated; even if we were to assume, arguendo, that fitness and athleticism were the true sole causes of the distance explosion in golf that just so happened to coincide with the introduction of urethane balls, IT DOES NOT MATTER. It does not matter because the ruling bodies have already determined to take some action if and when distances increase further. And they have.

 

Put another way; the USGA can’t and won’t regulate fitness or athleticism. They regulate equipment. So that is what they will do, regardless of whether athleticism or urethane covered balls are the true cause in fact.

[15th Club]

We aren’t talking about any reversion to old equipment or old materials.

 

The serious people in the rollback debate are all-new technology and all new standards that would hopefully produce a meaningful rollback to match elite level play with historic championship golf courses while minimally affecting recreational players.

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > But writing a book(s) does not make you an expert... Sorry.

> >

> > Wow. When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.

> >

>

> Listen, my point is that on that panel you have a few individuals that I think are pretty knowledgeable. It is arrogant to say he know more than them all put together. That is my point.

 

So say that, not writing nine books on golf course architecture doesn't mean you aren't an expert on golf course architecture. You don't even have to like what he writes to concede he knows more than a little about what he is talking about.

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > But writing a book(s) does not make you an expert... Sorry.

> > >

> > > Wow. When you find yourself in a hole quit digging.

> > >

> >

> > Listen, my point is that on that panel you have a few individuals that I think are pretty knowledgeable. It is arrogant to say he know more than them all put together. That is my point.

>

> So say that, not writing nine books on golf course architecture doesn't mean you aren't an expert on golf course architecture. You don't even have to like what he writes to concede he knows more than a little about what he is talking about.

 

Well, I did say that, just a few points above... but you are correct, I was not clear. My point is that I think it is arrogant to say he know more than the other guys combined. Other than Paige, who I don't think know really anything about golf period. Anyway this discussion is pointless, has been done multiple times to the same conclusion...

 

 

[bscinstnct]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > > > @beluga99 said:

> > > > > > > > > What has the average club head speed increased by in the same period?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > About 9 or 10 mph, as a Tour average.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Also seems significant. Bigger, stronger players with the confidence to take their 460cc drivers and bomb with impunity.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Of course it is significant. Players swinging 45" drivers with 60 or 70 gram shafts, instead of 43.5" drivers with 123 gram shafts. And how do they manage to hit such drivers straight, with all that head speed? Solid core multilayer balls with urethane covers that don't spin as much.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If anybody wishes to argue that it takes consummate skill, to hit drivers the way that PGA Tour players do, save it. I agree. Tour players are fantastically skilled. But if balls were rolled back by some significant/realistic percentage, the Tour players would still be exercising all of their skill. Only in a slightly shorter distance frame. Long players would still be long, shorter players would still be shorter. Accurate players would still be accurate. Wild drives would still be penalized.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And we'd have a game that better fit the historic championship golf courses.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but you are. The balata balls of old do not spin more. They in fact, spin about the same, they are simply just super soft and slow off clubs. In fact, off wedges, the spin less. I don't understand how people can think that something with a liquid core, and wound rubber bands can spin more than a solid core hard ball.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here is a little data for you to look at. Yes, this is one mans test, but still it is a real test.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Balata balls also have a shelf life. Shiels found some pretty good ones, but there is an advertisement that shows their initial velocity to be at the regulated max. The same max as today. In other words, if the balata balls were made brand new today, they would likely be closer yet in initial ball speed vs the modern ball.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > That part could be true. I don't know. I am just simply saying that everyone is looking back at balatas with rose colored glasses. Thinking they spun more is not really correct. Off the driver, maybe a touch.

> > >

> > > Like I have been trying to say all along, there is sooooooooooo much more to the equation than just the ball. For every mile per hour of club head speed increase it is about 3 yard gain in distance. If you look at the numbers originally posted. that equals about 5 miles per more in club head speed. Which that number or more is easily visible on tour. They are all swinging faster. There are way more tour pros at our near 120 club head speed than in the past. That is why there are a lot more out there hitting it further. It is not just the ball.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Yep. Easy to point the finger at the ball/clubs, but I think most folks who are most critical of the modern game are just disgruntled that the modern tour player has athleticism that they simply do not (not now and perhaps not ever). And they point at the equipment being the reason for the distance gains, but also completely ignore how modern pros and elite players use technology and fitness to hit the ball further (ie radar based launch monitors, pressure plates, 3D, overspeed training etc) by both optimizing launch conditions and optimizing speed. Sure the clubs may help in terms of off center hit forgiveness, but to have near perfect impact while swinging 120+ is incredible. In the past there were some players who really did "find it in the dirt" and thus had an advantage over the field, modern tech just makes that search much more clinical.

>

>

> I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated; even if we were to assume, arguendo, that fitness and athleticism were the true sole causes of the distance explosion in golf that just so happened to coincide with the introduction of urethane balls, IT DOES NOT MATTER. It does not matter because the ruling bodies have already determined to take some action if and when distances increase further. And they have.

>

> Put another way; the USGA can’t and won’t regulate fitness or athleticism. They regulate equipment. So that is what they will do, regardless of whether athleticism or urethane covered balls are the true cause in fact.

 

 

 

The final decision would be with the players/PGA Tour. The USGA can't do anything that the players, overwhelmingly, don't want them to do.