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

[smashdn]

> @clevited said:

>

> This just sounds like a yearning for yesterday. Nostalgia for how the game was played or how you prefer it played. Games change. Strategy changes. You have any idea how hard it is to keep a drive that is in the air for 9 seconds in play? No matter how good you are. Do you have any idea how perfect you have to be with both contact, swing path, and face angle to make it not curve too much at the speeds some of these guys are at. It gets exponentially harder the faster you are. I think there is a lack of appreciation for what these guys can do off the tee. I mean, they even flight them down, and shape them a lot of them!

 

And after they have done that, what else do they have to be good at as a golfer? Flip wedge and putting?

 

I agree that the game changed and the strategy has changed. I think I have said it and provided examples that it is largely one dimensional. Read - not entertaining, not creating interesting golf on tv - at least to me and others. Driving is underappreciated because Rory can drive it 330. He is a small guy. Brooks can drive it 330. He isn't small. JB Holmes can drive it 330. He isn't small. Patrick Cantlay is currently averaging it 318 for the 2020 season. He is 5'10" 160lbs. The game as a whole has dictated that to be successful over the long haul you have to drive it a long way. Period. It may be hard but they can afford to spend a large percentage of their time doing it because of how skewed that ability is towards winning.

 

If baseball were to go to aluminum bats how do you think the strategy would change? Everybody top to bottom would be hitting it out of the park. The game would rely even more heavily on hitting a homerun.

 

If everyone has the ability and skill it ceases to be a skill. Think Tiger 1.0's abilities. What did he do that others could not? Hit long irons as accurately as the rest of the field was hitting their 8 iron. What did Nicklaus do that others did not? He hit it a long way and was pretty accurate. How did Seve win? He scrambled like a boss.

[LICC]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > Imagine honestly believing that it takes more skill to carp a drive next to a bunker and run up a 6-iron than it does to bomb it over the bunker and stuff a wedge.

> >

> > This may be the oddest comment here. You think it takes equal amounts of skill to hit a 6-iron onto a green as it does to hit a wedge to the green?

>

> Imagine ignoring the first shot that allowed the wedge in your analysis.

>

 

Imagine ignoring that modern equipment, and not a difference in player skill, is the reason the first shot was a bomb over the bunker.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > If they are fans, and enjoy watching PGA Tour events, they will enjoy the game no matter how it is played. If not, they can opt to watch something else. Every television sold today comes with a remote control, so they dont even have to get off the couch to change the channel.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > This makes no sense. You are basically saying that nothing regarding how courses are played matter. Fans will just like whatever is thrown out there

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I don’t agree with this either. There are definitely events at courses more worth watching than others. The game needs guidelines. Which exist to stay viable for the future. But it does not mean go into retrograde.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I never said there were not courses that are more worth watching, but that is a personal choice and anyone is free to only watch those that they wish. For me, I enjoy all golf, regardless of the venue.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > You said golf fans will enjoy and watch golf no matter how it is played. That just doesn’t hold up to logic.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > If you only enjoy watching golf being played one way, your preferred way, than you are not a fan of golf in general, you are a fan of what you believe golf should be. A true fan of golf should enjoy golf played in any manner that highlights the best player of the day/week, I would think. So yes, it does hold up to logic, quite well, in my opinion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nope. Using your logic, you're not a golf fan unless you enjoy watching long drive competitions, because that is a manner of playing golf.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Huge generalization, also, more and more people are watching golf on tv. It is thriving. The play can't be boring for a huge number of people. Why do people like you watch it still if it is boring and just a long drive fest?

> > > > >

> > > > > Talk about a huge generalization. The options aren't watch what would be the best type of golf possible or don't watch at all. And golf ratings have been in the same general range for years.

> > > >

> > > > The best type of golf possible is YOUR OPINION. Not REALITY. I enjoy watching long bombs, and recovery shots when they screw up. I like seeing guys shape it off the tee too when they feel they need to which is more often than you might think. I enjoy seeing these guys make tough shots look easy. I love the guts these guys have to hit driver when leading by one on a narrow par 4. I like seeing playoff rounds where both guys' nerves show and they both hit them into the woods and have to pull off sketchy recovery shots. There is a lot to enjoy in professional golf these days. It is all depending on your perspective. I just don't have one narrow point of view on how the game should be played. I watch it because I love the game and because every single one of these players can pull off shots I could only dream of.

> > >

> > > And you love seeing nothing but wedges and short irons on all the par-4s. And you think shaping a shot off the tee with an iron is somehow better golf than shaping a driver off the tee. And you think if golfers had to think more about what shots to play and had longer irons in, that recovery shots wouldn't exist anymore. That is your opinion, which in my opinion isn't based on strong evidence.

> >

> > Last time I checked, golf still has a ton of strategy at all levels of play. Also, it is absolutely not all bomb and gouge like you pretend it is. Some courses, on some days are more of that yes, others are not and not all of those are because of length. I enjoy seeing players have to shape it around a tree when they get into trouble off the tee. Heck, I enjoy seeing them hit it dead straight over the tree (boring to you maybe). They still had to calculate that distance, they still had to execute that. I see this happen when water is in play, talk about big balls some of these guys have. I would have chipped out because I don't know if I could pull that off. Again, this is all dependent of perspective and my perspective of what is entertaining in the game is every bit as meaningful as yours.

>

> We are all entitled to our opinions, but not all opinions have the same merit. And that is one of the purposes of this forum- to discuss the merits of different opinions.

>

> What courses on the PGA Tour do not reward or do not allow for bomb and gouge play? Harbour Town? Maybe (big maybe) Innisbrook or Chapultepec (even those, not really, the big hitters have major advantages). Which ones?

 

Big hitters have advantages in golf. Always have. Always will. It takes a great deal of skill to keep it in play, though. I don’t see many WLD champs on the PGA Tour.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > Imagine honestly believing that it takes more skill to carp a drive next to a bunker and run up a 6-iron than it does to bomb it over the bunker and stuff a wedge.

> > >

> > > This may be the oddest comment here. You think it takes equal amounts of skill to hit a 6-iron onto a green as it does to hit a wedge to the green?

> >

> > Imagine ignoring the first shot that allowed the wedge in your analysis.

> >

>

> Imagine ignoring that modern equipment, and not a difference in player skill, is the reason the first shot was a bomb over the bunker.

 

Then, why don’t you do it? You are free to do so.

[clevited]

@LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

[LICC]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @bigred90gt said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @smashdn said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, I get that. I agree. My main point is that it would be unfortunate to see the USGA choose to drastically change the industry to keep a handful of courses "relevant" for elite men's championships after it chose to do nothing for so long to preserve its own financial interests (15th agrees that the USGA did nothing to avoid potential litigation costs). If it's so important to the game of golf as a WHOLE, to roll back equipment such that elite men's tournaments can be held at 5-10 courses that apparently cannot currently host them, the USGA caused the issue out of self-preservation, and did not act as the self-proclaimed guardian of golf. That goes for the money spent to "keep up with the Jonses", as well.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that it has to be drastically changed. It could be phased in similar to the groove rule. You would know it is coming several years in advance. They maybe even could implement it in steps. I am only concerned with the ball though. If you need 460cc drivers to keep it somewhere on the face you still can have those in my scenario. Also hate to sound elitist but if you are spraying it everywhere you are likely not using $5 golf balls as you lose too many. Plus if you aren't swinging it fast and making crisp contact are you getting the benefit of that urethane cover? Probably not.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why not say, "In 2024 the USGA and R&A are beginning a staged rollback of golf ball distance performance **to keep golf courses challenging and relevant for tournament play without the continuing need to lengthen or alter said courses at tremendous expense to all players.** Together we will implement a tournament condition ball designed to go X% shorter will full shots for high swing speed players. In 2028 the specifications of that tournament ball will be carried across the board to all players as a part of the Rules of Golf."?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is not enough distance in equipment for most players they would have really hated the early eighties. If you are a recreational player you don't have to play conforming equipment. If you are not playing in a tournament that specifies what tee boxes to use and distance is a problem for you, move up a tee box or two. Children that barely hit it 100 yards can get enjoyment out of the game when they start at appropriate places.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In relation to the bold statement above, it IS NOT a tremendous expense "to all players". If the course management/membership so chooses to lengthen or alter the course, then they willingly adopt that expense. If that expense (to a course that includes public play) gets passed on to paying customers and people stop showing up, management will know it was a poor business decision. The majority of these "precious and historic courses" are private. If membership votes the changes, obviously it isn't too "trememdous" of an expense, and effects no one but those paying the dues, who voted for the changes. The amount of clubs that are lengthening and altering their courses to continue to host "elite championships" does not come even remotely close to effecting all players. I would say it might, on a high side of the guess, effect 0.1% of all players, and even then, I think that number is far too high.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just cant get on board with the thought that there is a need to do anything with regards to construction on these courses. Alterations are completed out of desire, not necessity, and that is their problem and shouldn't effect the rest of the world of golf. If the courses were no longer relevant, they would no longer be open for play. They are relevant for those who pay for their membership, and being a private club/business, that is the only thing that should matter.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a 1% problem for less than 1%. It is the course designers that worry about their designs being obsolete. It is old pros concerned about records. That is the real heart of it. It is elitist in nature. It is stuffy rich white men is smoking jackets talking about the "good old days". The game is moving past these individuals and they do not like it. I am glad we are leaving these "gentleman" behind.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are forgetting the golf fans who enjoy watching PGA Tour events that now see a devolved game of bomb driver, wedge into the green all the time.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If they are fans, and enjoy watching PGA Tour events, they will enjoy the game no matter how it is played. If not, they can opt to watch something else. Every television sold today comes with a remote control, so they dont even have to get off the couch to change the channel.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > This makes no sense. You are basically saying that nothing regarding how courses are played matter. Fans will just like whatever is thrown out there

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I don’t agree with this either. There are definitely events at courses more worth watching than others. The game needs guidelines. Which exist to stay viable for the future. But it does not mean go into retrograde.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I never said there were not courses that are more worth watching, but that is a personal choice and anyone is free to only watch those that they wish. For me, I enjoy all golf, regardless of the venue.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > You said golf fans will enjoy and watch golf no matter how it is played. That just doesn’t hold up to logic.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > If you only enjoy watching golf being played one way, your preferred way, than you are not a fan of golf in general, you are a fan of what you believe golf should be. A true fan of golf should enjoy golf played in any manner that highlights the best player of the day/week, I would think. So yes, it does hold up to logic, quite well, in my opinion.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nope. Using your logic, you're not a golf fan unless you enjoy watching long drive competitions, because that is a manner of playing golf.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Huge generalization, also, more and more people are watching golf on tv. It is thriving. The play can't be boring for a huge number of people. Why do people like you watch it still if it is boring and just a long drive fest?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Talk about a huge generalization. The options aren't watch what would be the best type of golf possible or don't watch at all. And golf ratings have been in the same general range for years.

> > > > >

> > > > > The best type of golf possible is YOUR OPINION. Not REALITY. I enjoy watching long bombs, and recovery shots when they screw up. I like seeing guys shape it off the tee too when they feel they need to which is more often than you might think. I enjoy seeing these guys make tough shots look easy. I love the guts these guys have to hit driver when leading by one on a narrow par 4. I like seeing playoff rounds where both guys' nerves show and they both hit them into the woods and have to pull off sketchy recovery shots. There is a lot to enjoy in professional golf these days. It is all depending on your perspective. I just don't have one narrow point of view on how the game should be played. I watch it because I love the game and because every single one of these players can pull off shots I could only dream of.

> > > >

> > > > And you love seeing nothing but wedges and short irons on all the par-4s. And you think shaping a shot off the tee with an iron is somehow better golf than shaping a driver off the tee. And you think if golfers had to think more about what shots to play and had longer irons in, that recovery shots wouldn't exist anymore. That is your opinion, which in my opinion isn't based on strong evidence.

> > >

> > > Last time I checked, golf still has a ton of strategy at all levels of play. Also, it is absolutely not all bomb and gouge like you pretend it is. Some courses, on some days are more of that yes, others are not and not all of those are because of length. I enjoy seeing players have to shape it around a tree when they get into trouble off the tee. Heck, I enjoy seeing them hit it dead straight over the tree (boring to you maybe). They still had to calculate that distance, they still had to execute that. I see this happen when water is in play, talk about big balls some of these guys have. I would have chipped out because I don't know if I could pull that off. Again, this is all dependent of perspective and my perspective of what is entertaining in the game is every bit as meaningful as yours.

> >

> > We are all entitled to our opinions, but not all opinions have the same merit. And that is one of the purposes of this forum- to discuss the merits of different opinions.

> >

> > What courses on the PGA Tour do not reward or do not allow for bomb and gouge play? Harbour Town? Maybe (big maybe) Innisbrook or Chapultepec (even those, not really, the big hitters have major advantages). Which ones?

>

> Big hitters have advantages in golf. Always have. Always will. It takes a great deal of skill to keep it in play, though. I don’t see many WLD champs on the PGA Tour.

 

The advantages are much greater now than they were before the massive increases in distance from modern equipment.

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

 

I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

[clevited]

 

> > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

>

> I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

 

That didn't really answer my question. Do you know how hard it is? Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

 

If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> Just for fun, here is Kevin Na hitting a old drivers and saying he hits it better than his driver, > @LICC said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> >

> > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

>

> That didn't really answer my question. Do you know how hard it is? Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

>

> If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

 

It doesn't screw up any more than when the pros had slower clubhead speeds but were playing the non-solid core balls before 2000.

[smashdn]

And then you can throttle back to 115, control it and not be much shorter than anyone else. But do they do that? Some do, some don't. Some just work longer grooving that driver swing because distance is that important.

 

 

Listen to what he says about his need to practice more, spend more of his time taming the spin, to get the results needed. You have a finite amount of practice time or at least an amount of time you are willing to devote to practice. Of that time you have to choose how you spend it. The equipment as a whole, but particularly the driver, has made it easier to hit it accurately and far. So theoretically you don't have to spend as much time grooving that driver swing, you can spend it on other things.

 

Also take note of what he says about his misses with the old stuff versus his current driver.

 

^That is all just an indication of some of the difficulty that has been removed from the pro game. I am not advocating going back to persimmon or balata but only pointing out how technology has displaced some measure of skill or aptitude. Making it more challenging to get that distance and keep it in play will benefit those who have the skill or choose to spend the time working on it.

[clevited]

> @LICC said:

> > @clevited said:

> > Just for fun, here is Kevin Na hitting a old drivers and saying he hits it better than his driver, > @LICC said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> > >

> > > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

> >

> > That didn't really answer my question. Do you know how hard it is? Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

> >

> > If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

>

> It doesn't screw up any more than when the pros had slower clubhead speeds but were playing the non-solid core balls before 2000.

 

I completely disagree with that. You aren't as nearly far offline as you are today. The further you hit it, the more trouble you get it when you get it wrong. I own several old drivers (laminated and persimmon), and they spin in the 3ks for me with a modern ball. I hit those bad, they stay in play and I can still make par. Its more like a 3 wood off the tee tbh, the old ball and driver.

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > Just for fun, here is Kevin Na hitting a old drivers and saying he hits it better than his driver, > @LICC said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> > > >

> > > > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

> > >

> > > That didn't really answer my question. Do you know how hard it is? Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

> > >

> > > If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

> >

> > It doesn't screw up any more than when the pros had slower clubhead speeds but were playing the non-solid core balls before 2000.

>

> I completely disagree with that. You aren't as nearly far offline as you are today. The further you hit it, the more trouble you get it when you get it wrong. I own several old drivers (laminated and persimmon), and they spin in the 3ks for me with a modern ball. I hit those bad, they stay in play and I can still make par. Its more like a 3 wood off the tee tbh, the old ball and driver.

 

I reference the ball and you then talk about the club. Different analysis.

 

Pros have hit the old balls in experiments and the results were the balls were flying all over the place. Read up on the development of the Nike ball in 2000 and then the Pro V1, and how that entirely changed the game when it came to ball flight. Look at @smashdn 's post above. This isn't really opinion-based; it's clearly and indisputably true.

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> And then you can throttle back to 115, control it and not be much shorter than anyone else. But do they do that? Some do, some don't. Some just work longer grooving that driver swing because distance is that important.

>

>

>

> Listen to what he says about his need to practice more, spend more of his time taming the spin, to get the results needed. You have a finite amount of practice time or at least an amount of time you are willing to devote to practice. Of that time you have to choose how you spend it. The equipment as a whole, but particularly the driver, has made it easier to hit it accurately and far. So theoretically you don't have to spend as much time grooving that driver swing, you can spend it on other things.

>

> Also take note of what he says about his misses with the old stuff versus his current driver.

>

> ^That is all just an indication of some of the difficulty that has been removed from the pro game. I am not advocating going back to persimmon or balata but only pointing out how technology has displaced some measure of skill or aptitude. Making it more challenging to get that distance and keep it in play will benefit those who have the skill or choose to spend the time working on it.

 

Just like any new equipment, you have to practice with it to get good with it. Modern players are really good. Would the old equipment produce more mis hits? Yes. Would the old equipment create shorter distance on average, yes. I am telling you though, its not like the talented players on tour would suddenly go away or suck at the game. They have nothing but time dedicated to their craft. Will some be better and more consistent at it than others? Absolutely. This sounds as if you think players of the past had more skill than players today. I remember the first time I went from a tiny steel driver that was smaller than my 5 wood today, to a modern titanium driver. I couldn't hit the thing worth a crap. I hit my old driver way better. I had to get used to the new one even though it was so much bigger. This would be opposite direction, but they can do it with practice.

[QuigleyDU]

This thread should just get closed. It has reached a new level of pointless and unproductive opinion'ing. The truth is that the only fact stated is the ball is going further than 15-20 years ago. That should not be a surprise, or shock to anyone. It is in my mind no different than seeing pro NFL players are now bigger, stronger, faster the 15-20 years ago. Or that Basketball players are playing the game differently than 15-20 years ago.

 

There has not been any other fact presented as to what it means, what impact it has, or how it help/destroys the game. Everything is just speculation, opinion, and fear speech on both sides.

[clevited]

> @LICC said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > Just for fun, here is Kevin Na hitting a old drivers and saying he hits it better than his driver, > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> > > > >

> > > > > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

> > > >

> > > > That didn't really answer my question. Do you know how hard it is? Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

> > > >

> > > > If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

> > >

> > > It doesn't screw up any more than when the pros had slower clubhead speeds but were playing the non-solid core balls before 2000.

> >

> > I completely disagree with that. You aren't as nearly far offline as you are today. The further you hit it, the more trouble you get it when you get it wrong. I own several old drivers (laminated and persimmon), and they spin in the 3ks for me with a modern ball. I hit those bad, they stay in play and I can still make par. Its more like a 3 wood off the tee tbh, the old ball and driver.

>

> I reference the ball and you then talk about the club. Different analysis.

>

> Pros have hit the old balls in experiments and the results were the balls were flying all over the place. Read up on the development of the Nike ball in 2000 and then the Pro V1, and how that entirely changed the game when it came to ball flight. Look at @smashdn 's post above. This isn't really opinion-based; it's clearly and indisputably true.

 

The old balls have a shelf life and I mentioned the club because that was my best comparison. The point was, spin was higher which you got with the old balls. Rick Shiels has a video of him hitting older liquid balls that would be near what you are describing. They were in amazing like new condition for how old they were but I imagine they lost a little elasticity with age. He was able to control that with driver every bit as well as he did a prov. His accuracy was essentially the same.

 

Besides this, Tiger and Phil have lived through the transition to the modern solid core balls, how come they are not accurate as all hell with this new straight ball and forgiving clubs? They surely haven't lost that much skill? How come these other guys that swing even faster can hit the modern ball straight as an arrow and these guys cannot?

[gvogel]

> @clevited said:

>

> > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> >

> > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

>

> That didn't really answer my question. **Do you know how hard it is? **Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

>

> If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

 

It doesn't appear very hard for someone like Rory who was born with speed and flexibility.

[clevited]

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> >

> > > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> > >

> > > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

> >

> > That didn't really answer my question. **Do you know how hard it is? **Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

> >

> > If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

>

> It doesn't appear very hard for someone like Rory who was born with speed and flexibility.

 

Exactly, it doesn't "appear" to be very hard. You don't know how much skill it takes until you are able to experience it yourself.

[QuigleyDU]

> @Titleist99 said:

> Over the last 40 years average driving distance for PGA Pros has increased 40 yards. It's been said that our classic golf courses are becoming obsolete and professional golf will suffer for it. People have suggested that we roll back the equipment or lengthen the courses where possible. Lets take a closer look at distance off the tee. In the last 40 years only 5 driving leader have at least one major championship and only three will be considered for the Hall of fame (IMO). Take note that the two greatest players of the recent generation is not on the list T. Woods and P. Mickelson. Most of the leaders hasn't had stellar careers, while distance is good I think that it is safe to say that our golf courses is safe for the time being with a little tweaking from the PGA Tour. Just my opinion. Agree or Disagree.....Note when J. Daly was averaging 300 off the tee the rest of the Tour was averaging about 267 yards. I don't think that a good Pro need to average 300 yards to compete on any track...

> Disclaimer: All names, numbers and spelling are approx..

>

> Here’s the average driving distance and overall leader for every year since 1980:

>

>

> Year

>

> Average Distance

>

> Leader

>

> Leader's average

>

>

> 2018 295.29 Trey Mullinax 318

> 2017 292.79 Rory McIlroy 316.7

> 2016 291.06 J.B. Holmes 314.5

> 2015 290.21 Dustin Johnson 317.7

> 2014 289.85 Bubba Watson 314.3

> 2013 288.00 Luke List 306.3

> 2012 290.07 Bubba Watson 315.5

> 2011 291.14 J.B. Holmes 318.4

> 2010 287.49 Robert Garrigus 315.5

> 2009 288.07 Robert Garrigus 312

> 2008 287.74 Bubba Watson 315.1

> 2007 289.08 Bubba Watson 315.2

> 2006 289.35 Bubba Watson 319.6

> 2005 288.88 Scott Hend 318.9

> 2004 287.32 Hank Kuehne 314.4

> 2003 286.30 Hank Kuehne 321.4

> 2002 279.84 John Daly 306.8

> 2001 279.35 John Daly 306.7

> 2000 273.18 John Daly 301.4

> 1999 272.45 John Daly 305.6

> 1998 270.63 John Daly 299.4

> 1997 267.67 John Daly 302

> 1996 266.49 John Daly 288.8

> 1995 263.55 John Daly 289

> 1994 261.84 Davis Love III 283.8

> 1993 260.36 John Daly 288.9

> 1992 260.52 John Daly 283.4

> 1991 261.44 John Daly 288.9

> 1990 262.75 Tom Purtzer 279.6

> 1989 261.81 Ed Humenik 280.9

> 1988 263.50 Steve Thomas 284.6

> 1987 262.50 John McComish 283.9

> 1986 261.58 Davis Love III 285.7

> 1985 260.18 Andy Bean 278.2

> 1984 259.61 Bill Glasson 276.5

> 1983 258.65 John McComish 277.4

> 1982 256.89 Bill Calfee 275.3

> 1981 259.66 Dan Pohl 280.1

> 1980 256.89 Dan Pohl 274.3

>

>

> Taken from PGA>com

 

Going back to the original post. Do you regret posting this yet?? haha.

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > Just for fun, here is Kevin Na hitting a old drivers and saying he hits it better than his driver, > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

> > > > >

> > > > > That didn't really answer my question. Do you know how hard it is? Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

> > > >

> > > > It doesn't screw up any more than when the pros had slower clubhead speeds but were playing the non-solid core balls before 2000.

> > >

> > > I completely disagree with that. You aren't as nearly far offline as you are today. The further you hit it, the more trouble you get it when you get it wrong. I own several old drivers (laminated and persimmon), and they spin in the 3ks for me with a modern ball. I hit those bad, they stay in play and I can still make par. Its more like a 3 wood off the tee tbh, the old ball and driver.

> >

> > I reference the ball and you then talk about the club. Different analysis.

> >

> > Pros have hit the old balls in experiments and the results were the balls were flying all over the place. Read up on the development of the Nike ball in 2000 and then the Pro V1, and how that entirely changed the game when it came to ball flight. Look at @smashdn 's post above. This isn't really opinion-based; it's clearly and indisputably true.

>

> The old balls have a shelf life and I mentioned the club because that was my best comparison. The point was, spin was higher which you got with the old balls. Rick Shiels has a video of him hitting older liquid balls that would be near what you are describing. They were in amazing like new condition for how old they were but I imagine they lost a little elasticity with age. He was able to control that with driver every bit as well as he did a prov. His accuracy was essentially the same.

>

> Besides this, Tiger and Phil have lived through the transition to the modern solid core balls, how come they are not accurate as all **** with this new straight ball and forgiving clubs? They surely haven't lost that much skill? How come these other guys that swing even faster can hit the modern ball straight as an arrow and these guys cannot?

 

Tiger was more accurate last year with his driver than he was in 2004. Phil is almost 50 years old. Do you think skill levels don't change from age 25 to age 50?

[smashdn]

> @clevited said:

> **This sounds as if you think players of the past had more skill than players today. ** I remember the first time I went from a tiny steel driver that was smaller than my 5 wood today, to a modern titanium driver. I couldn't hit the thing worth a crap. I hit my old driver way better. I had to get used to the new one even though it was so much bigger. This would be opposite direction, but they can do it with practice.

 

No, that isn't what I think. I think the players of today do not have to be as skillful at driving the ball to get playable results. They can apply that time that was needed to be proficient to other things as they see fit. Putting, chipping, lifting weights, camera shoots for endorsement deals, etc. As a whole they are every bit as skilled and definitely more athletically talented.

 

I go back and forth between a Titleist 913 and various persimmon drivers. Hitting it on the sweet spot is the same with either one. If I am grooving the persimmon driver it makes hitting the 420ish cc driver a piece of cake. It doesn't really work in the opposite unfortunately. You can't swing the same way to get playable results. Can't really swing up on the ball with the persimmon, which results in a lower ball flight, which exacerbates the side spin, which results in more off-line drives, which necessitates throttling down to focus on contact. The results from the same distance miss of the sweet spots are vastly different. Slight pushes versus big slice type differences.

 

Again just for the record, not advocating going to persimmon drivers, just pointing out how a return to a ball with more spin and less distance would elevate other aspects of the game to be more even in importance with distance.

[clevited]

> @LICC said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > Just for fun, here is Kevin Na hitting a old drivers and saying he hits it better than his driver, > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That didn't really answer my question. Do you know how hard it is? Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

> > > > >

> > > > > It doesn't screw up any more than when the pros had slower clubhead speeds but were playing the non-solid core balls before 2000.

> > > >

> > > > I completely disagree with that. You aren't as nearly far offline as you are today. The further you hit it, the more trouble you get it when you get it wrong. I own several old drivers (laminated and persimmon), and they spin in the 3ks for me with a modern ball. I hit those bad, they stay in play and I can still make par. Its more like a 3 wood off the tee tbh, the old ball and driver.

> > >

> > > I reference the ball and you then talk about the club. Different analysis.

> > >

> > > Pros have hit the old balls in experiments and the results were the balls were flying all over the place. Read up on the development of the Nike ball in 2000 and then the Pro V1, and how that entirely changed the game when it came to ball flight. Look at @smashdn 's post above. This isn't really opinion-based; it's clearly and indisputably true.

> >

> > The old balls have a shelf life and I mentioned the club because that was my best comparison. The point was, spin was higher which you got with the old balls. Rick Shiels has a video of him hitting older liquid balls that would be near what you are describing. They were in amazing like new condition for how old they were but I imagine they lost a little elasticity with age. He was able to control that with driver every bit as well as he did a prov. His accuracy was essentially the same.

> >

> > Besides this, Tiger and Phil have lived through the transition to the modern solid core balls, how come they are not accurate as all **** with this new straight ball and forgiving clubs? They surely haven't lost that much skill? How come these other guys that swing even faster can hit the modern ball straight as an arrow and these guys cannot?

>

> Tiger was more accurate last year with his driver than he was in 2004. Phil is almost 50 years old. Do you think skill levels don't change from age 25 to age 50?

 

Phil can still hit the crazy short game shots he used to just fine. He is still very very skilled. With the driver, at his age? Sure, I have no reason to believe he couldn't be nearly as skilled. Maybe he should dial it back or maybe he never had that much skill with it in the first place. You tell me. You still didn't answer my question, regardless of Tiger being more accurate, why is he in trouble off the tee with it so often and guys swinging upwards of 10 mph faster than him hitting lasers? Same tech different players. I saw Tiger struggling with his driver a lot, and swinging much slower (regardless of fused back and all, should be able to better control the ball). You have guys who are HIGHLY skilled, able to hit lasers swinging much faster with the same equipment. I just feel the ball and club and lack of skill needed are blown out of proportion.

[smashdn]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> This thread should just get closed. It has reached a new level of pointless and unproductive opinion'ing. The truth is that the only fact stated is the ball is going further than 15-20 years ago. That should not be a surprise, or shock to anyone. It is in my mind no different than seeing pro NFL players are now bigger, stronger, faster the 15-20 years ago. Or that Basketball players are playing the game differently than 15-20 years ago.

>

> There has not been any other fact presented as to what it means, what impact it has, or how it help/destroys the game. Everything is just speculation, opinion, and fear speech on both sides.

 

But yet both of those sports/leagues have enacted rule changes or tweaks to produce a product that they desire. PI calls, not hitting the QB, etc. Three point line, lane changes, restricted area, no zone defense, etc. And the professional game plays by different rules than amateurs.

 

Golf is inherently different in this regard. I am not sure if that is good or bad but it presents a different set of circumstances that must be taken into account.

[clevited]

> @smashdn said:

> > @clevited said:

> > **This sounds as if you think players of the past had more skill than players today. ** I remember the first time I went from a tiny steel driver that was smaller than my 5 wood today, to a modern titanium driver. I couldn't hit the thing worth a crap. I hit my old driver way better. I had to get used to the new one even though it was so much bigger. This would be opposite direction, but they can do it with practice.

>

> No, that isn't what I think. I think the players of today do not have to be as skillful at driving the ball to get playable results. They can apply that time that was needed to be proficient to other things as they see fit. Putting, chipping, lifting weights, camera shoots for endorsement deals, etc. As a whole they are every bit as skilled and definitely more athletically talented.

>

> I go back and forth between a Titleist 913 and various persimmon drivers. Hitting it on the sweet spot is the same with either one. If I am grooving the persimmon driver it makes hitting the 420ish cc driver a piece of cake. It doesn't really work in the opposite unfortunately. You can't swing the same way to get playable results. Can't really swing up on the ball with the persimmon, which results in a lower ball flight, which exacerbates the side spin, which results in more off-line drives, which necessitates throttling down to focus on contact. The results from the same distance miss of the sweet spots are vastly different. Slight pushes versus big slice type differences.

>

> Again just for the record, not advocating going to persimmon drivers, just pointing out how a return to a ball with more spin and less distance would elevate other aspects of the game to be more even in importance with distance.

 

I have been successful hitting up on a persimmon. It is scary but you still tee it a bit higher and hit it on the upswing. I got higher launch and lower spin doing so. I also have a few different wooden headed clubs. Some I can hit pretty well some I cannot. It probably is no different than back in day before club fitting. Players just messed around with different clubs until they found ones that suited them, or they changed the way they swung to suit the club (which probably was the less common thing to do). Miss hits do indeed go crooked, but not as LONG crooked so I would be in less trouble often. It all depends on how you look at it. I am sure there are times when persimmon and old ball would get you in more trouble, but also plenty of times where it keeps you out of disastrous trouble imo.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @gvogel said:

> > @clevited said:

> >

> > > > @LICC question, are you a long hitter? Do you know how hard it is from experience?

> > >

> > > I'm a recreational golfer, not a PGA Tour player. For a recreational golfer I am decently long.

> >

> > That didn't really answer my question. **Do you know how hard it is? **Do you know that the harder you hit it the more precise you have to be with both contact and everything else. You have to pay even closer attention to wind direction and wind speed as well.

> >

> > If you screw up swinging in the 120s+ you REALLY screw up.

>

> It doesn't appear very hard for someone like Rory who was born with speed and flexibility.

 

And Lebron James makes dunking look easy.

The bottom line is golf has changed. Everybody agrees.

Some appreciate the level of skill the modern game requires at the elite level, and the fact that not just anyone can do it.

Some don't.

I understand. If you were a scratch player in the 1970s, you got to turn on the TV and see the best players in the world win tournaments by doing things you could come close to doing on occasion, but just not as consistently. That was the appeal for some. The, "If I had more time to practice, who knows?" mindset.

Now, you can be a +2 and still have no shot at doing the things you see on TV. That is disheartening for some.

[QuigleyDU]

> @smashdn said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > This thread should just get closed. It has reached a new level of pointless and unproductive opinion'ing. The truth is that the only fact stated is the ball is going further than 15-20 years ago. That should not be a surprise, or shock to anyone. It is in my mind no different than seeing pro NFL players are now bigger, stronger, faster the 15-20 years ago. Or that Basketball players are playing the game differently than 15-20 years ago.

> >

> > There has not been any other fact presented as to what it means, what impact it has, or how it help/destroys the game. Everything is just speculation, opinion, and fear speech on both sides.

>

> But yet both of those sports/leagues have enacted rule changes or tweaks to produce a product that they desire. PI calls, not hitting the QB, etc. Three point line, lane changes, restricted area, no zone defense, etc. And the professional game plays by different rules than amateurs.

>

> Golf is inherently different in this regard. I am not sure if that is good or bad but it presents a different set of circumstances that must be taken into account.

 

Really the only rule I can think of that correlates is that they moved back on PAT so that they are now longer. That seems closer to lengthening the course than not. But, at this point whatever. A rollback will not affect me or the tour. But it will affect many casual and rec players that actually support the game, and do not gain from it.

 

They should be considered first and foremost. If you stand to gain in some way from the result either way, then your opinion is selfish and skewed.

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > This thread should just get closed. It has reached a new level of pointless and unproductive opinion'ing. The truth is that the only fact stated is the ball is going further than 15-20 years ago. That should not be a surprise, or shock to anyone. It is in my mind no different than seeing pro NFL players are now bigger, stronger, faster the 15-20 years ago. Or that Basketball players are playing the game differently than 15-20 years ago.

> > >

> > > There has not been any other fact presented as to what it means, what impact it has, or how it help/destroys the game. Everything is just speculation, opinion, and fear speech on both sides.

> >

> > But yet both of those sports/leagues have enacted rule changes or tweaks to produce a product that they desire. PI calls, not hitting the QB, etc. Three point line, lane changes, restricted area, no zone defense, etc. And the professional game plays by different rules than amateurs.

> >

> > Golf is inherently different in this regard. I am not sure if that is good or bad but it presents a different set of circumstances that must be taken into account.

>

> Really the only rule I can think of that correlates is that they moved back on PAT so that they are now longer. That seems closer to lengthening the course than not. But, at this point whatever. A rollback will not affect me or the tour. But it will affect many casual and rec players that actually support the game, and do not gain from it.

>

> They should be considered first and foremost. If you stand to gain in some way from the result either way, then your opinion is selfish and skewed.

 

 

 

So no there have been no details, no technical discussion, no regulatory specifications and no publicly-announced testing of prototypes, and yet you make that declaration about what the effects of a rollback will be.

 

Astonishing.

 

Well, since you’re entitled to your opinion I guess I am entitled to mine. And mine is that there will indeed be a rollback and either by technically creative means or a bifurcation of the Rules, the coming rollback won’t have any discernible effect on most recreational players.

 

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > This thread should just get closed. It has reached a new level of pointless and unproductive opinion'ing. The truth is that the only fact stated is the ball is going further than 15-20 years ago. That should not be a surprise, or shock to anyone. It is in my mind no different than seeing pro NFL players are now bigger, stronger, faster the 15-20 years ago. Or that Basketball players are playing the game differently than 15-20 years ago.

> > > >

> > > > There has not been any other fact presented as to what it means, what impact it has, or how it help/destroys the game. Everything is just speculation, opinion, and fear speech on both sides.

> > >

> > > But yet both of those sports/leagues have enacted rule changes or tweaks to produce a product that they desire. PI calls, not hitting the QB, etc. Three point line, lane changes, restricted area, no zone defense, etc. And the professional game plays by different rules than amateurs.

> > >

> > > Golf is inherently different in this regard. I am not sure if that is good or bad but it presents a different set of circumstances that must be taken into account.

> >

> > Really the only rule I can think of that correlates is that they moved back on PAT so that they are now longer. That seems closer to lengthening the course than not. But, at this point whatever. A rollback will not affect me or the tour. But it will affect many casual and rec players that actually support the game, and do not gain from it.

> >

> > They should be considered first and foremost. If you stand to gain in some way from the result either way, then your opinion is selfish and skewed.

>

>

>

> So no there have been no details, no technical discussion, no regulatory specifications and no publicly-announced testing of prototypes, and yet you make that declaration about what the effects of a rollback will be.

>

> Astonishing.

>

> Well, since you’re entitled to your opinion I guess I am entitled to mine. And mine is that there will indeed be a rollback and either by technically creative means or a bifurcation of the Rules, the coming rollback won’t have any discernible effect on most recreational players.

>

 

But, why didn't the USGA have the good of the game in mind rather than its own financial interests ~20 years ago?

Can you at least answer that, since you cannot answer my question about Pasatiempo?

[oikos1]

> @LICC said:

> > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > Imagine honestly believing that it takes more skill to carp a drive next to a bunker and run up a 6-iron than it does to bomb it over the bunker and stuff a wedge.

> > >

> > > This may be the oddest comment here. You think it takes equal amounts of skill to hit a 6-iron onto a green as it does to hit a wedge to the green?

> >

> > Imagine ignoring the first shot that allowed the wedge in your analysis.

> >

>

> Imagine ignoring that modern equipment, and not a difference in player skill, is the reason the first shot was a bomb over the bunker.

 

Distance is a skill. The PGA just chooses to currently reward inaccurate distance.

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > @smashdn said:

> > > > @QuigleyDU said:

> > > > This thread should just get closed. It has reached a new level of pointless and unproductive opinion'ing. The truth is that the only fact stated is the ball is going further than 15-20 years ago. That should not be a surprise, or shock to anyone. It is in my mind no different than seeing pro NFL players are now bigger, stronger, faster the 15-20 years ago. Or that Basketball players are playing the game differently than 15-20 years ago.

> > > >

> > > > There has not been any other fact presented as to what it means, what impact it has, or how it help/destroys the game. Everything is just speculation, opinion, and fear speech on both sides.

> > >

> > > But yet both of those sports/leagues have enacted rule changes or tweaks to produce a product that they desire. PI calls, not hitting the QB, etc. Three point line, lane changes, restricted area, no zone defense, etc. And the professional game plays by different rules than amateurs.

> > >

> > > Golf is inherently different in this regard. I am not sure if that is good or bad but it presents a different set of circumstances that must be taken into account.

> >

> > Really the only rule I can think of that correlates is that they moved back on PAT so that they are now longer. That seems closer to lengthening the course than not. But, at this point whatever. A rollback will not affect me or the tour. But it will affect many casual and rec players that actually support the game, and do not gain from it.

> >

> > They should be considered first and foremost. If you stand to gain in some way from the result either way, then your opinion is selfish and skewed.

>

>

>

> So no there have been no details, no technical discussion, no regulatory specifications and no publicly-announced testing of prototypes, and yet you make that declaration about what the effects of a rollback will be.

>

> Astonishing.

>

> Well, since you’re entitled to your opinion I guess I am entitled to mine. And mine is that there will indeed be a rollback and either by technically creative means or a bifurcation of the Rules, the coming rollback won’t have any discernible effect on most recreational players.

>

 

My declaration is that if the ball gets shorter for all it will affect everyone differently. Seeing players that can barely hit the ball out of their shadows with the current overly hot ball I am wondering how making the ball even a foot shooter is a good thing for them?? I hit the ball as far as any pro out there. It will not affect me the same way. Bifurcation to me based on how the game is currently set up seems impossible. The lines between pro and am golf blur far to much.

 

Stop being confrontational. Especially since I neither mentioned or addressed you. I know your ego dictates that you chime in and try to force your opinions down everyone throat, but it is not productive.

 

 

[Golfnutgalen]

driving accuracy numbers were better with the crappy golf equipment of the 90s, make of that what you will.

 

2019: average driving accuracy: 62.5%

2009: 64%

1999: 69.1%

1989: 65%

1980 (earliest stats): 62.5%

 

Okay I did not expect to see that. Looks like the driving accuracy numbers were getting better every year up until about the Prov1 and 460 heads which led to a plummet in accuracy to go along with the big distance gains. Makes sense actually because hitting the ball further requires that you hit it more accurately in terms of degrees offline to stay within the fairway. You could also make a point that the golf courses are rewarding the bigger hitters more and I think both of those points stand. Still, color me surprised to see the 1980 stats I thought going back even that far the players would be hitting more accurately than today's bomb and gougers.