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

[15th Club]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Sandhurst241069 said:

> > I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

>

> I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

 

 

Curiously, I was trying to come up with another sport where the players got to choose the ball that they played with, and every year there might be improvements in the performance of the ball. Football kickers might love that. Shooting guards in basketball. If baseball has made the ball more lively it has been done in virtual secrecy; at least as to the means and the intent. But even so, an ever-so-slightly improved baseball has been met with intense controversy and derision. Chicks may dig the long ball but few inside baseball do.

 

[Titleist99]

> @"15th Club" said:

> The PGA Tour wants nothing to do with the Rules and most of all equipment technology regulations. Doing all of that is a costly, thankless task for the ruling bodies. The PGA Tour isn’t more interested in working on favorable tax treatment for its massive pension plan.

 

LOL!......You are so right. The Pga Tour knows that it is just entertainment. They want more sponsors and more dollars...

[SNIPERBBB]

I believe bowling is the only other sports you're not required to use a certain brand and model of ball dictated by the governing body.

 

You can get away with using whatever ball you want once, maybe twice every few years in high school sports. Generally it's dictated by the state organizations on which you play but if for some reason you don't have the say Rawlings ball but have say a Wilson ball, were directed as officials, at least in Ohio to still play the game but we will be sending OHSAA a report about the improper ball. Enough reports come in from your school and I'd imagine something will happen but I've never heard of it happening more than once.

[Shilgy]

> @"15th Club" said:

> 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.

 

This may have been asked in later pages but.... Does it matter if the old historic courses "could" test the modern player? Events would still not be held there as they do not have room for the massive crowds at today's bigger events.

[xxio]

How many players in the top 10 on the PGA Tour are outside the top50 in driving distance?

[300_yard_drives]

How about the PGA tour gets rid of the 1st cut in firm conditions? It is basically a longer fairway lie that often prevents the ball going into longer and thicker grass. Make the rough long and nasty and a ball rolling towards the rough will be penalized. As analytics in golf have increased so has distance off the tee and I would compare the issue to 3pt shot in the NBA. If it is going to make you more successful then people will exploit it.

[bladehunter]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @mahonie said:

>

> > I agree that most players care about hitting irons, wedges, etc well but the issue is that irons and wedges are not as easy to hit well as the modern driver is now and that’s just backwards in my thinking. The driver should be the hardest to hit club but the 460cc head and balls that don’t spin arguably make it the easiest. Now if fairway woods, irons and wedges could be ‘dumbed down’ to the level that the driver has, the game would grow exponentially. Perhaps the USGA/R&A should let the size of the other clubs grow to the same extent that the driver has so that they are all in proportion again and the whole game becomes much easier and more attractive to the masses...heaven forbid!

> >

> > My real issue is that the focus on distance has made the modern game very one-dimensional and diminishes the enjoyment of shotmaking to the extent that new players to the game don’t really appreciate how much of the game it used to be and how much pleasure can be gained from it.

>

> I've never really understood the term "shotmaking", but I know how others define it, so I'll use that definition.

> I agree that someone brand new to the game doesn't understand shotmaking, or how much a part of the game it was in the 1970s.

> I don't believe, however, that a <2 HCP who started playing in the Pro V1 era just tries to hit stock shots, and doesn't understand what shot calls for what shape.

> I see great young amateurs shaping it into protected pins, knocking it down, etc. all the time. The fact that they never played with wound balls and wooden clubs like you and I did doesn't mean they don't understand "shotmaking".

>

> In any sport or profession, the people who came before believe they had it more difficult than the newer people. To me, that's how this whole debate smells if we're all being honest.

> (This, of course, purposely ignores our friends who stay up at night worrying about whether professional golfers will play a handful of courses the way a bunch of dead people wanted them to be played, because I honestly don't care about that, and neither does the vast majority of the USGA's supposed contituents).

>

> Having said all of that, I am 110% certain that an equipment rollback (ball, driver, or both) would benefit me personally in my meaningless local matches and tournaments. I've been in the game long enough to determine within a few swings which guys with my same index would struggle greatly if we even went back in time to 2000. I'm just not sold that it would be a net benefit for golf as a whole. Hope that makes sense.

>

> And, thanks for being civil!

 

Great post !

 

We may disagree slightly on actually implementing it. But it is nice to see someone else confirm that the new tech helps some way more than others. This is the real roadblock to a reboot. The fact that a lot of “5 caps “ would go to 10 nearly overnight. ( pure hypothetical example ).

[bladehunter]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @Sandhurst241069 said:

> > I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

>

> I'm trying to come up with another sport that rolled back it's equipment.....??? Baseball is making the ball more lively and the parks smaller.

 

 

No other sport has really let it get out of hand. That’s the issue.

 

I’m not a fan at all. But NASCAR keeps coming up in my mind as a good comparison to golf and it’s equipment race. They have rolled back aero , mph and engine Hp potential several times in the name of safety to actually keep the cars physically on the track. Kind of similar to how the golf ball almost doesn’t fit on some courses now. And no don’t focus on me saying the word safety. Nobody claiming golf is any more dangerous now. That wasn’t the point. Point is most sports have done a good job regulating equipment. We don’t see aluminum bats in baseball. We don’t see small footballs in nfl and we don’t see 8 ft hoops and junior balls in the nba. That all would be equivalent to what golf has now. It’s a bunch of pros playing on a 8ft goal with a junior ball.

[SNIPERBBB]

NBA analogy is a bad one, you bring a 27.5 inch ball and 8 or 9 foot rims and you'll never see a 100 pt game again

[gvogel]

> @dlygrisse said:

> Fusion of:

> 1. Driver COR-faster players get exponentially longer, while shorter hitters don't pick up much. tour pro gets 40 extra yards, I get 10. If we both picked up 40 then all is fair.

> 2. Tee height, with larger head, high launch and low spin.

> 3. Modern Ball

> 4. Driver Size-swing harder more forgiving no fear of hitting it dead sideways like persimmon.

> 5. Shaft Length, lighter shaft.

> 7. Firmer Fairways

> 8. Player fitness-This is a bit over blown, Hogan, Player and Snead were in great shape, as were others, they just didn't post on Instagram.

> 9. Technique and modern tech in teaching-overrated as well, but I am sure it has had a minor impact.

>

> In that order, in my humble opinion. But they are all a factor.

 

I am in agreement with this statement.

[Man_O_War]

looking at the absolute numbers doesn't make much sense. YOu look at the guys who averaged just a bit less distance, who hit their irons closer and made putts. That would be the complete picture , not just bombing it off the tee. 318 yards versus 305 yards, laser irons , laser putting that's what makes the courses obsolete.

[clevited]

I feel we need to summarize the reasons some people want to lower distance in the game.

 

1) Pro's in their opinion, hit it too far and play courses, old and new in ways not intended.

2) Scores are too low

3) It takes skill out of the game

4) Historic courses cannot be played on the tour anymore

5) It causes slow play for amateurs

6) Golf today is boring to watch

 

I would like to now try and present some counter arguments.

 

1) This is an OPINION and players if they are able, will always play a course not as intended if it can net them a lower score. You cannot make a course play the same way for every player of varying skill level and power. Just like anything, players will gravitate towards what works. It is more of a strategy change than a problem. They hit a stock shot whenever possible because it is the most predictable and reliable. Cut corners if you know you can hit it high enough (still risk and reward there, they hit it a tad thin it gets knocked down and is in the trees, they just make it look easy because you know, they are really good). Think about the use of "the shift" and home run hitting in the MLB today, or 3 pointers in the NBA, or the dominance of the passing game in the NFL. Strategy changes as people discover what works the best.

 

2) The lowest score wins which is all that matters really. You can't compare par of the 70s and 80s to par of the early days of the sport. You therefore, cannot compare scores of today to the 70s and 80s. It also isn't like everyone is shooting 62 each round they play.

 

3) Sure, sweet spots are bigger, there is more forgiveness but there is an absolute limit to all of this. The limits are set, the equipment is not getting drastically better. If you think that you are believing the advertising BS these companies put out today. Do you really think tour players these days are all terrible ball strikers? The vast majority of tour players would still play extremely well with smaller club heads. Look how well they hit any fairway wood for instance. Look at how many hit driving irons that have much smaller sweet spots than any driver.

 

4) This has been said many times, many historic courses cannot host tour events, so throw that argument out the window. These courses still have incredible value, they are played by normal people like you and I. Perhaps think of it like an old football stadium that is no longer used due to changing needs in the sport. It might be demo'd or it might be utilized by the city for other things for years to come. It is still a historic site. Some places are renovated and kept relevant, think Lambeau Field.

 

5) This just isn't true. Think about it, and dive into whatever facts you can bring up with this. This is just speculation, most notably mentioned by Jack Nicklaus.

 

6) This is an OPINION. I personally find it more entertaining now than I used to. There is still the excitement of the Sunday final round. There are still the incredible shots that these guys pull off that 99% of the players of golf in the world probably can't do, especially with only ONE shot at it and during a tournament! These guys can still shape the ball, a ball that is harder to shape than it use to be. It is harder to control you could say, and harder to stop on the greens of today. Weather is still random and can make things more interesting or more boring and easy. Set ups can make the game more or less interesting depending on your own preference. A heck of a lot of people are mesmerized by the bombs these guys hit and how they can do it under pressure and down a fairway that is 25 yards wide. They are mesmerized at how they get out of trouble and pull off a par after a wayward tee shot, or some bad luck. Different talents and strategy are prominent today compared to the previous eras. It seems to make many from those years think the game today is too easy and boring, but it obviously isn't to a lot of golf enthusiasts. Is the NBA, NFL and MLB, and NHL less entertaining? To some yes, to others no. Some lose interest in the sport, while new people gain interest. I feel the big picture needs to be seen here, and focus on the past is not a good measure or decision making tool for changing the games most important object, the ball.

 

Just to add a few other things. I think of little league baseball when I think of golf. The courses I play around my home are mostly little league stadiums. They are plenty difficult for me, plenty long, and plenty challenging. I enjoy them. I look at the tour courses as a big league stadium. Generally longer, and much more difficult. These courses are the biggest stage in golf and should be difficult and different. Why does a need for a few courses to make their venue more difficult (whether by making it longer, or changing set up, or moving or adding obstacles) need to affect EVERYONE in golf? The need to make courses longer is a false narrative. There is NO NEED. There is a WANT. Stop making muni courses, or courses that will never be tour courses anyway crazy long and then complain about it. Make them shorter, and use creativity to make them difficult to whatever degree you want.

 

I just feel like the arguments for any kind of change are very pathetic and self serving for a relatively small portion of the golf population. Bifurcation isn't even a solution either, and I can explain why if needed.

 

USGA has limits in place. They are doing their job there. They can be forward thinking and limit other things they feel they should, or make a tiny roll back here and there but not a large roll back, not when the game has been played this way for 20+ years. There is a limit in everything and distance has its own limits and you already see that today. Many players today don't hit it nearly as hard as they can because it just doesn't benefit them enough. I guarantee you for example, that even Cameron Champ will dial back his speed over time in order to be more competitive on the bigger stage. If you notice, most players like him settle into the 180s ball speed average over time. It seems to be the butter zone, and they seem to only go after one when conditions and the risk/reward for doing so make sense.

[gvogel]

> @clevited said:

> I feel we need to summarize the reasons some people want to lower distance in the game.

>

> 1) Pro's in their opinion, hit it too far and play courses, old and new in ways not intended.

> 2) Scores are too low

> 3) It takes skill out of the game

> 4) Historic courses cannot be played on the tour anymore

> 5) It causes slow play for amateurs

> 6) Golf today is boring to watch

>

> I would like to now try and present some counter arguments.

>

> 1) This is an OPINION and players if they are able, will always play a course not as intended if it can net them a lower score. You cannot make a course play the same way for every player of varying skill level and power. Just like anything, players will gravitate towards what works. It is more of a strategy change than a problem. They hit a stock shot whenever possible because it is the most predictable and reliable. Cut corners if you know you can hit it high enough (still risk and reward there, they hit it a tad thin it gets knocked down and is in the trees, they just make it look easy because you know, they are really good). Think about the use of "the shift" and home run hitting in the MLB today, or 3 pointers in the NBA, or the dominance of the passing game in the NFL. Strategy changes as people discover what works the best.

>

> 2) The lowest score wins which is all that matters really. You can't compare par of the 70s and 80s to par of the early days of the sport. It also isn't like everyone is shooting 62 each round they play.

>

> 3) Sure, sweet spots are bigger, there is more forgiveness but their is an absolute limit to all of this. The limits are set, the equipment is not getting drastically better. If you think that you are believing the advertising BS these companies put out today. Do you really think tour players these days are all terrible ball strikers? The vast majority of tour players would still play extremely well with smaller club heads. Look how well they hit any fairway wood for instance. Look at how many hit driving irons that have much smaller sweet spots than any driver.

>

> 4) This has been said many times, many historic courses cannot host tour events, so throw that argument out the window. These courses still have incredible value, they are played by normal people like you and I. Perhaps think of it like an old football stadium that is no longer used due to changing needs in the sport. It might be demo'd or it might be utilized by the city for other things for years to come. It is still a historic site. Some places are renovated and kept relevant, think Lambeau Field.

>

> 5) This just isn't true. Think about it, and dive into whatever facts you can bring up with this. This is just speculation, most notably mentioned by Jack Nicklaus.

>

> 6) This is an OPINION. I personally find it more entertaining now than I used to. There is still the excitement of the Sunday final round. There are still the incredible shots that these guys pull off that 99% of the players of golf in the world probably can't do, especially with only ONE shot at it and during a tournament! These guys can still shape the ball, a ball that is harder to shape than it use to be. It is harder to control you could say, and harder to stop on the greens of today. Weather is still random and can make things more interesting or more boring and easy. Set ups can make the game more or less interesting depending on your own preference. A heck of a lot of people are mesmerized by the bombs these guys hit and how they can do it under pressure and down a fairway that is 25 yards wide. They are mesmerized at how they get out of trouble and pull off a par after a wayward tee shot, or some bad luck. Different talents and strategy are prominent today compared to the previous eras. It seems to make many from those years think the game today is too easy and boring, but it obviously isn't to a lot of golf enthusiasts. Is the NBA, NFL and MLB, and NHL less entertaining? To some yes, to others no. Some lose interest in the sport, while new people gain interest. I feel the big picture needs to be seen here, and focus on the past is not a good measure or decision making tool for changing the games most important object, the ball.

>

> Just to add a few other things. I think of little league baseball when I think of golf. The courses I play around my home are mostly little league stadiums. They are plenty difficult for me, plenty long, and plenty challenging. I enjoy them. I look at the tour courses as a big league stadium. Generally longer, and much more difficult. These courses are the biggest stage in golf and should be difficult and different. Why does a need for a few courses to make their venue more difficult (whether by making it longer, or changing set up, or moving or adding obstacles) need to affect EVERYONE in golf? The need to make courses longer is a false narrative. There is NO NEED. There is a WANT. Stop making muni courses, or courses that will never be tour courses anyway crazy long and then complain about it. Make them shorter, and use creativity to make them difficult to whatever degree you want.

>

> I just feel like the arguments for any kind of change are very pathetic and self serving for a relatively small portion of the golf population. Bifurcation isn't even a solution either, and I can explain why if needed.

>

> USGA has limits in place. They are doing their job there. They can be forward thinking and limit other things they feel they should, or make a tiny roll back here and there but not a large roll back, not when the game has been played this way for 20+ years. There is a limit in everything and distance has its own limits and you already see that today. Many players today don't hit it nearly as hard as they can because it just doesn't benefit them enough. I guarantee you for example, that even Cameron Champ will dial back his speed over time in order to be more competitive on the bigger stage. If you notice, most players like him settle into the 180s ball speed average over time. It seems to be the butter zone, and they seem to only go after one when conditions and the risk/reward for doing so make sense.

 

I take exception with No. 3. If driver heads for highly skilled players were 200 cc - 225 cc, shafts would have to be shorter. You say that these players have no problem hitting fairway woods, but there is significantly more loft on a fairway wood. I'm pretty sure that a much smaller driver at 9* or 10* would be much more difficult to hit consistently.

 

And, by the way, as someone else mentioned earlier, with higher COR a higher swinging player gets proportionately more distance than a slower swinging player. At the very least, I would like to see it brought back to a value that matches persimmon.

[clevited]

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > I feel we need to summarize the reasons some people want to lower distance in the game.

> >

> > 1) Pro's in their opinion, hit it too far and play courses, old and new in ways not intended.

> > 2) Scores are too low

> > 3) It takes skill out of the game

> > 4) Historic courses cannot be played on the tour anymore

> > 5) It causes slow play for amateurs

> > 6) Golf today is boring to watch

> >

> > I would like to now try and present some counter arguments.

> >

> > 1) This is an OPINION and players if they are able, will always play a course not as intended if it can net them a lower score. You cannot make a course play the same way for every player of varying skill level and power. Just like anything, players will gravitate towards what works. It is more of a strategy change than a problem. They hit a stock shot whenever possible because it is the most predictable and reliable. Cut corners if you know you can hit it high enough (still risk and reward there, they hit it a tad thin it gets knocked down and is in the trees, they just make it look easy because you know, they are really good). Think about the use of "the shift" and home run hitting in the MLB today, or 3 pointers in the NBA, or the dominance of the passing game in the NFL. Strategy changes as people discover what works the best.

> >

> > 2) The lowest score wins which is all that matters really. You can't compare par of the 70s and 80s to par of the early days of the sport. It also isn't like everyone is shooting 62 each round they play.

> >

> > 3) Sure, sweet spots are bigger, there is more forgiveness but their is an absolute limit to all of this. The limits are set, the equipment is not getting drastically better. If you think that you are believing the advertising BS these companies put out today. Do you really think tour players these days are all terrible ball strikers? The vast majority of tour players would still play extremely well with smaller club heads. Look how well they hit any fairway wood for instance. Look at how many hit driving irons that have much smaller sweet spots than any driver.

> >

> > 4) This has been said many times, many historic courses cannot host tour events, so throw that argument out the window. These courses still have incredible value, they are played by normal people like you and I. Perhaps think of it like an old football stadium that is no longer used due to changing needs in the sport. It might be demo'd or it might be utilized by the city for other things for years to come. It is still a historic site. Some places are renovated and kept relevant, think Lambeau Field.

> >

> > 5) This just isn't true. Think about it, and dive into whatever facts you can bring up with this. This is just speculation, most notably mentioned by Jack Nicklaus.

> >

> > 6) This is an OPINION. I personally find it more entertaining now than I used to. There is still the excitement of the Sunday final round. There are still the incredible shots that these guys pull off that 99% of the players of golf in the world probably can't do, especially with only ONE shot at it and during a tournament! These guys can still shape the ball, a ball that is harder to shape than it use to be. It is harder to control you could say, and harder to stop on the greens of today. Weather is still random and can make things more interesting or more boring and easy. Set ups can make the game more or less interesting depending on your own preference. A heck of a lot of people are mesmerized by the bombs these guys hit and how they can do it under pressure and down a fairway that is 25 yards wide. They are mesmerized at how they get out of trouble and pull off a par after a wayward tee shot, or some bad luck. Different talents and strategy are prominent today compared to the previous eras. It seems to make many from those years think the game today is too easy and boring, but it obviously isn't to a lot of golf enthusiasts. Is the NBA, NFL and MLB, and NHL less entertaining? To some yes, to others no. Some lose interest in the sport, while new people gain interest. I feel the big picture needs to be seen here, and focus on the past is not a good measure or decision making tool for changing the games most important object, the ball.

> >

> > Just to add a few other things. I think of little league baseball when I think of golf. The courses I play around my home are mostly little league stadiums. They are plenty difficult for me, plenty long, and plenty challenging. I enjoy them. I look at the tour courses as a big league stadium. Generally longer, and much more difficult. These courses are the biggest stage in golf and should be difficult and different. Why does a need for a few courses to make their venue more difficult (whether by making it longer, or changing set up, or moving or adding obstacles) need to affect EVERYONE in golf? The need to make courses longer is a false narrative. There is NO NEED. There is a WANT. Stop making muni courses, or courses that will never be tour courses anyway crazy long and then complain about it. Make them shorter, and use creativity to make them difficult to whatever degree you want.

> >

> > I just feel like the arguments for any kind of change are very pathetic and self serving for a relatively small portion of the golf population. Bifurcation isn't even a solution either, and I can explain why if needed.

> >

> > USGA has limits in place. They are doing their job there. They can be forward thinking and limit other things they feel they should, or make a tiny roll back here and there but not a large roll back, not when the game has been played this way for 20+ years. There is a limit in everything and distance has its own limits and you already see that today. Many players today don't hit it nearly as hard as they can because it just doesn't benefit them enough. I guarantee you for example, that even Cameron Champ will dial back his speed over time in order to be more competitive on the bigger stage. If you notice, most players like him settle into the 180s ball speed average over time. It seems to be the butter zone, and they seem to only go after one when conditions and the risk/reward for doing so make sense.

>

> I take exception with No. 3. If driver heads for highly skilled players were 200 cc - 225 cc, shafts would have to be shorter. You say that these players have no problem hitting fairway woods, but there is significantly more loft on a fairway wood. I'm pretty sure that a much smaller driver at 9* or 10* would be much more difficult to hit consistently.

>

> And, by the way, as someone else mentioned earlier, with higher COR a higher swinging player gets proportionately more distance than a slower swinging player. At the very least, I would like to see it brought back to a value that matches persimmon.

 

For you and I, perhaps much more difficult. For a pro, they have time to practice with it. They will get really really good with it and your distance issue very likely imo, won't be solved.

 

From my experience the cor thing isn't true at all. The harder you swing, the less efficient the ball strike is. There might be a butter zone of swing speed and efficiency but it sure doesn't seem to be in that upper tier swing speed area.

 

I know one thing, when you swing mid teens and up, ball compression can make a huge difference in ball speed. You get really poor efficiency hitting a marshmallow vs a rock hard golf ball off the tee, but then you have to think about feel around the greens. Etc etc.

 

 

[clevited]

To address the distance proportion thing again, that is physics. The faster the initial velocity, generally the further it goes and its not exactly linear. Do you want it to be so the harder you hit it, the more spin it gets? That isn't fair now is it? Besides that, it currently is like that. You know how hard it is and expensive it can be to lower that spin to something manageable when you swing in the mid to upper 120s? It can be very difficult.

 

You see to want golf to be like wiffle ball. Harder you hit it the often times worse it is. Goes straight up and their is nothing you can do about it but swing very very slow. Maybe a better solution would be to use spaghetti thin driver shafts where if you swing too fast they break or bend so much the ball would go sideways if not careful.

[clevited]

@gvogel

 

Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

 

https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

 

Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

 

 

[Krt22]

> @clevited said:

> @gvogel

>

> Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

>

> https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

>

> Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

>

>

 

I was going to say the same thing. As with all things physics related, typically the harder/faster you do anything, the more losses there will be. So the statement is largely reversed, you need to be exponentially faster to get longer off the tee in a linear fashion.

[SNIPERBBB]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @clevited said:

> > @gvogel

> >

> > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> >

> > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> >

> > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> >

> >

>

> I was going to say the same thing. As with all things physics related, typically the harder/faster you do anything, the more losses there will be. So the statement is largely reversed, you need to be exponentially faster to get longer off the tee in a linear fashion.

 

Law of diminishing returns

[gvogel]

> @clevited said:

> @gvogel

>

> Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

>

> https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

>

> Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

>

>

 

That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

 

In other words, what is the difference in distance at 90 mph swing speed for a COR of .83 versus a COR of .75; and what is the difference at 110 and 120 mph swing speeds for those two different COR measures?

[clevited]

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > @gvogel

> >

> > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> >

> > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> >

> > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> >

> >

>

> That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

 

? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

 

Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

[gvogel]

> @clevited said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > @gvogel

> > >

> > > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> > >

> > > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> > >

> > > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

>

> ? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

>

> Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

 

No, I suspect that there might be a 5 yard increase in distance for a 90 mph swing speed between a COR of .75 and a COR of .83, but more like a 15 yard difference between the two COR values at a swing speed of 115. I would like to see such a study.

[clevited]

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > @gvogel

> > > >

> > > > Just a little diddy I found that talks about my point on the harder you swing the less efficient you are idea.

> > > >

> > > > https://www.usga.org/articles/2011/04/do-long-hitters-get-an-unfair-advantage-2147496940.html

> > > >

> > > > Edit: FYI I would not be against better limits on aerodynamics of a golf ball, forward thinking stuff or small roll back because you can't react to everything as it is happening but 20+years is way too much.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > That is a study for golf balls. I would like to see a study of different COR driver faces for different swing speeds.

> >

> > ? The ball study wouldn't have shown what it did if that was an issue. It would show the ball performance as stagnant or improving as swing speed went up would it not? If this is a modern problem, I have no issue with adding manufacturing rules to stop it through limits, but I would be willing to bet it isn't a modern issue.

> >

> > Perhaps you thinking of CT creep? This happens as a club gets used and happens more noticeably for higher speed players. It is quite minor generally.

>

> No, I suspect that there might be a 5 yard increase in distance for a 90 mph swing speed between a COR of .75 and a COR of .83, but more like a 15 yard difference between the two COR values at a swing speed of 115. I would like to see such a study.

 

I guess I don't understand what you are getting at. It sounds like you have a problem with physics? COR is a percentage of energy transfer. Of course as you swing faster, that percentage is going to be a larger number because you are inputting more energy. You then have more distance.

 

So you would like it to be that a guy swinging 90 mph gets 5 yards more with that increase COR but the guy swinging 120 also gets 5 yards more? Life doesn't work that way, and that is a very sad and unfair want of yours if that is what you are getting at. You do indeed want the guy that is gifted, talented, worked hard for speed to have no reason really to have it because it won't be worth the time and effort to gain it. If this is true, it sounds so very selfish.

[golfer07840]

These distance threads are like an old married couple who have simply just had enough of each other and they break into a huge argument at Thanksgiving. It always starts out with someone stating what they feel is a fact. And then it turns into a polite "well no.. " and next thing you know it's full-blown warfare and you're stuck at the table shaking your head going "why did I even bother to come here this year?"

 

 

[bladehunter]

Sure. But ...,, you basically boil this down to one side wanting a rollback and one side not. Neither is correct. Neither is really wrong.

 

But I will add. If it’s thought that “ pros will just practice with a tiny driver and get good at it “ why all the hand wringing ? As in if it makes no difference why not do it ?

[Krt22]

> @bladehunter said:

> Sure. But ...,, you basically boil this down to one side wanting a rollback and one side not. Neither is correct. Neither is really wrong.

>

> But I will add. If it’s thought that “ pros will just practice with a tiny driver and get good at it “ why all the hand wringing ? As in if it makes no difference why not do it ?

 

Because the whole point of having a tour presence is to push your retail offerings.

[Titleist99]

> @300_yard_drives said:

> How about the PGA tour gets rid of the 1st cut in firm conditions? It is basically a longer fairway lie that often prevents the ball going into longer and thicker grass. Make the rough long and nasty and a ball rolling towards the rough will be penalized. As analytics in golf have increased so has distance off the tee and I would compare the issue to 3pt shot in the NBA. If it is going to make you more successful then people will exploit it.

 

You never hear about the NBA lowering or raising the basket or making the floor bigger or making the ball bigger.

How 'bout making out of bounds a two shot penalty, or a water hazard a two shot penalty or making the bunkers a true

hazard. Instead you have touring pro shout "get in the bunker"...A lot of things can be tested before rolling back the equipment.

Guess we'll have to wait for the European Tour to try it first...they think outside the box.

[Titleist99]

> @golfer07840 said:

> These distance threads are like an old married couple who have simply just had enough of each other and they break into a huge argument at Thanksgiving. It always starts out with someone stating what they feel is a fact. And then it turns into a polite "well no.. " and next thing you know it's full-blown warfare and you're stuck at the table shaking your head going "why did I even bother to come here this year?"

>

>

>

 

But you couldn't control yourself and you had to join in anyway......LOL!

[clevited]

> @bladehunter said:

> Sure. But ...,, you basically boil this down to one side wanting a rollback and one side not. Neither is correct. Neither is really wrong.

>

> But I will add. If it’s thought that “ pros will just practice with a tiny driver and get good at it “ why all the hand wringing ? As in if it makes no difference why not do it ?

 

I would think there would need to be a good reason to change it. If you admit it won't do much to change driving distance on the tour, then why do it? For fun? Meanwhile, it would almost certainly have a negative impact on the average golfer unless you bifurcate, but that is another subject and has major issues as well.

 

Edit: What is pretty funny is I like the smaller club heads and I am not a great golfer. I have several older clubs and I like the look of them behind the ball much more as well as the feel when I swing them. Like they have so much less drag, and like the weight of the head is in a better spot. I prefer the feel of them when I swing them possibly because the CG is not so far away from the shaft tip or something.

[golfer07840]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @golfer07840 said:

> > These distance threads are like an old married couple who have simply just had enough of each other and they break into a huge argument at Thanksgiving. It always starts out with someone stating what they feel is a fact. And then it turns into a polite "well no.. " and next thing you know it's full-blown warfare and you're stuck at the table shaking your head going "why did I even bother to come here this year?"

> >

> >

> >

>

> But you couldn't control yourself and you had to join in anyway......LOL!

 

It's like a car accident. I shouldn't slow down and look, but I can't help it.

[QuigleyDU]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > > IF you really wanted to test accuracy, go to more postage stamp style greens where you only have 1-2 clubs you can hit only the green with outside of wedge range. Greens you can land a small jet on are more offensive to me than anything.

> >

> > This, I completely agree with!! This is a perfect example of how you can design or set up a course without altering length and make it difficult. The tour stops have greens that are huge!!. I play a local dog track that is a super simple course but I never score well there because the greens are very small and the are like upside down cereal bowls.

>

> I think the larger greens are to offer a variety of pin positions. Well designed courses have well defined landing areas where you basically are looking at a 3-putt if you dont land it in the right area for the given pin. Even with that though, the longer hitters will still be at an advantage since they will typically have a a shorter iron in hand than the short knockers.

 

> @golfer07840 said:

> These distance threads are like an old married couple who have simply just had enough of each other and they break into a huge argument at Thanksgiving. It always starts out with someone stating what they feel is a fact. And then it turns into a polite "well no.. " and next thing you know it's full-blown warfare and you're stuck at the table shaking your head going "why did I even bother to come here this year?"

>

>

>

 

Well what can you expect from a 49ers fan???