Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

Dialing Back the Ball


157 replies to this topic

#31 bladehunter

bladehunter

    Cubs win ! Cubs win!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,497 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 11744

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:20 AM

View Postnew2g0lf, on 07 November 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 07 November 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

View Postnew2g0lf, on 06 November 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

The comments Jack and Tiger made are self serving from the perspective that they are course designers and architects and distance isn't as important to them.  

Show me a significant number of up and coming Tour player or amateur who thinks the ball goes too far.  I'd be shocked if more than 10% felt the ball needs to be rolled back.

I heard Jimmy Connors believes tennis should go back to the wood racket.

I hear there's a poll in tour talk that puts the numbers at 50/50.

That poll is poorly worded and is biased to vote for a rollback.  Seems not many understand there are already limits on equipment and golf balls and distances have not increased significantly year over year.

The rollback many of you are fighting for, doesn't roll golf back 1 year, 5 years or even 10 years but 20 years which if it was spelled out in the poll would likely change the results.

Oh come now. People understand roll back vs leave it alone.  If you throw that spin on it surely it would be skewed the opposite direction.   And I disagree with how many years it would be moved back.  Maybe 15.  But 20?  No way.  Nobody is actively talking for a wound ball.


Not to mention the author of the poll is pro current ball.

Edited by bladehunter, 07 November 2017 - 09:24 AM.

17 M2  V2 Tour 10.5  Fuji Atmos Black 6X   Green Graphic special edition
17 M1 15  Graphite Design   ADDI 8X
Titleist TMB 2 Graphite Design 105X prototype
Vega VDC-01 Raw Handground 4-pw Modus 130X
Vega VW-02 Raw 52 56 60 S400
009 GSS 1.5  , Beached, tungsten sole weights

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#32 NJpatbee

NJpatbee

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 266092
  • Joined: 07/24/2013
  • Location:Sussex County, NJ
  • Handicap:17.5
GolfWRX Likes : 365

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:31 AM

The USGA has reasonable limits on golf equipment and there are plenty of courses that can handle a PGA Tournament.  The equipment today is longer than 30 years ago but lets remember that Jack hit a 341 yard drive in 1963 at the PGA Championship Long Drive Contest using a persimmon driver and a wound ball.  I say leave the limits where they are and for many courses have holes where a 340 yard drive better be right on the money - allow some deeper rough, more sand at the 300+ range, waste areas, and do not cut the fairways down so they roll like fast greens.   These are not mega-million dollar enhancements to courses and if you want to host the PGA at 6800 yards from the tips you can make it challenging.  It might mean some less than driver shots from the tee for the big hitters for some holes, and it might lengthen the career of some golfers (e.g. Tiger, Rory) who swing out of their shoes and punish their bodies.  Add some strategy instead of "bomb and gouge" on every hole.

The PGA Tour should get on board with not conditioning courses for their tournaments so DJ can carry and roll 370+ yards.   Keep the current limits and make the courses play more reasonable and there should be no problem for the pros obsoleting many courses.  And for the other 20 million golfers in the US we will continue to enjoy our average 215 yard drives (ummmm....275, I forgot I was posting on GolfWrx) from the proper tees.

2

#33 Uhit

Uhit

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 60

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:35 AM

View Postnew2g0lf, on 06 November 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

The best solution was posted by North Butte in the Tour Talk Forum, "Now Tiger says the ball goes too far.."; leave the rules alone and let the tournament directors at shorter courses impose a local rule that a rolled back ball must be used for that tournament.

Beside, that I already mentioned that solution about a month ago here:

http://www.golfwrx.c...0#entry16294594

The same theme...

...just like here:

http://www.golfwrx.c...0#entry14755812

...with the well known fact, that the distances have not really increased accross the board:

http://www.golfwrx.c...le-has-changed/

...you can be sure, that nearly every long hitter, with lots of success during his career, is keen on dialing back everything, as soon as he sees the danger to be dethroned from a new kid in town. ;)

Edited by Uhit, 07 November 2017 - 09:41 AM.


3

#34 new2g0lf

new2g0lf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,872 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 114437
  • Joined: 09/06/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1117

Posted 07 November 2017 - 09:36 AM

View Postbladehunter, on 07 November 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

View Postnew2g0lf, on 07 November 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 07 November 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

View Postnew2g0lf, on 06 November 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

The comments Jack and Tiger made are self serving from the perspective that they are course designers and architects and distance isn't as important to them.  

Show me a significant number of up and coming Tour player or amateur who thinks the ball goes too far.  I'd be shocked if more than 10% felt the ball needs to be rolled back.

I heard Jimmy Connors believes tennis should go back to the wood racket.

I hear there's a poll in tour talk that puts the numbers at 50/50.

That poll is poorly worded and is biased to vote for a rollback.  Seems not many understand there are already limits on equipment and golf balls and distances have not increased significantly year over year.

The rollback many of you are fighting for, doesn't roll golf back 1 year, 5 years or even 10 years but 20 years which if it was spelled out in the poll would likely change the results.

Oh come now. People understand roll back vs leave it alone.  If you throw that spin on it surely it would be skewed the opposite direction.   And I disagree with how many years it would be moved back.  Maybe 15.  But 20?  No way.  Nobody is actively talking for a wound ball.


Not to mention the author of the poll is pro current ball.

When I posted comparisons on average distance over the last 15 years, I was told by some (possibly not you) that I had to go back to 98 to see the real impact of equipment on driving distances, that's 19 years and would be 20 before we see any action by the USGA.

4

#35 MikekiM

MikekiM

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 415850
  • Joined: 03/15/2016
  • Location:San Diego, CA
GolfWRX Likes : 20

Posted 07 November 2017 - 11:47 AM

Just curious, even if there's a tournament ball, how do they intend to enforce it?  How easy is it going to be to identify a tournament ball?  What's to prevent someone from sneaking in a normal ball , or even a slightly better ball that looks like a tournament ball?

Taylor Made R15
Ping G25
Taylor Made Jetspeed Hybrid
Titleist T-MB
Titleist 716 CB
Titleist Vokey SM6
Scotty Cameron Newport
K-Sig Ball

5

#36 cristphoto

cristphoto

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,856 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 42981
  • Joined: 11/30/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 530

Posted 07 November 2017 - 12:26 PM

View Postcaniac6, on 06 November 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

Why don't Tiger and Jack say anything about big titanium drivers with graphite shafts? My old Toney Penna with a steel shaft was much harder to hit. Why not have standard lofts on irons equal to lofts from the 70s or 80s? I think Byron Nelson said the biggest change was the lob wedge. He said it allowed players to attack pins that they could not. Why not max wedge lofts at 56? There are a lot of things that can be done to make the game harder, and dial back distance. Why do they just say dial back the ball?

Bingo.  Reduce the size of the driver on tour to maybe 350cc, shorten the shaft an inch or so and let the pros work a bit more to find the sweet spot. Also no need to make new courses 7500 yards or more. Simply put more doglegs starting at 250-275 yards and let the pros try to work the ball more if they want to bang driver. This would have zero effect on the amateur golfers.

6

#37 ode1

ode1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,919 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 98193
  • Joined: 11/08/2009
GolfWRX Likes : 375

Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:28 PM

View PostNorth Butte, on 07 November 2017 - 08:28 AM, said:

View Postode1, on 06 November 2017 - 10:51 PM, said:

And there is nothing stating golfers.cant play a sucky, dialed back ball.  Have at it!

Except nobody makes sucky dialed-back balls. They don't make them because nobody wants to buy them.

So you're missing the point. The only solution for the Big Bad USGA to force everyone to use sucky dialed-back balls. Then the craven manufacturers will make them. And then everyone will be happy...OK, not everyone but a few grumpy old Baby Boomers longing to force the whole world to stop and return to their glory days.

Lol



7

#38 NRJyzr

NRJyzr

    new pup Sťamus

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,862 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72626
  • Joined: 01/12/2009
  • Location:Minnesota, USA
  • Ebay ID:n.r.jyzr
GolfWRX Likes : 4218

Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:31 PM

I see this entire argument as much ado about nothing.  

The average distance of the entire Tour from 2004 thru 2017 certainly doesn't show any alarming trends.  Add to that the comments from folks working Shotlink, who tend to say what you hear on TV is exaggerated.
Year   Avg
2004  287.3
2005  288.9
2006  289.3
2007  289.1
2008  287.7
2009  288.1
2010  287.5
2011  291.1
2012  290.1
2013  288.0
2014  289.8
2015  290.2
2016  291.1
2017  293.0

Edited by NRJyzr, 07 November 2017 - 01:36 PM.

The Ever Changing Bag!

Driver:  King LTD, HZRDUS 75 6.5 at 44½" --or-- R9 SuperDeep, Motore F1 85 X at 43½"

3w:  Stage 2 Tour 14.5°, BiMatrix X at 42½"

3h Stage 2 Tour, NV105 S and 3-PW Golden Ram TW276, NV105 S
--or--
2-PW Golden Ram TW282, Precision 6.5

SW:  Ram TG-898 56°, NV105 S  --or--  Golden Ram TW282 56°, Precision 6.5
LW:  Maltby Design 60°, NV105 S  --or--  Maltby Design 60°, DGS300 tipped 1"
Putter:  Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35"
Balls:  in no particular order...  Wilson Staff FG Tour or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV, Vice Pro Neon
Shoes by New Balance
Pure Pro grips, various colors

8

#39 Uhit

Uhit

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 60

Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:36 PM

View Postcristphoto, on 07 November 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

View Postcaniac6, on 06 November 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

Why don't Tiger and Jack say anything about big titanium drivers with graphite shafts? My old Toney Penna with a steel shaft was much harder to hit. Why not have standard lofts on irons equal to lofts from the 70s or 80s? I think Byron Nelson said the biggest change was the lob wedge. He said it allowed players to attack pins that they could not. Why not max wedge lofts at 56? There are a lot of things that can be done to make the game harder, and dial back distance. Why do they just say dial back the ball?

Bingo.  Reduce the size of the driver on tour to maybe 350cc, shorten the shaft an inch or so and let the pros work a bit more to find the sweet spot. Also no need to make new courses 7500 yards or more. Simply put more doglegs starting at 250-275 yards and let the pros try to work the ball more if they want to bang driver. This would have zero effect on the amateur golfers.

Even 300cc and 46 inch would be plenty (Callaway Bertha Mini 1.5 has 235cc and 44 inch - I got one...) this would also be closer to the former size and length of drivers, which Jack had used...

...interestingly he seems not to promote this simple and (at least from his point of view) obvious possibility.
Maybe he is more invested in the ball business, than in the clubmaker business.

Edited by Uhit, 07 November 2017 - 01:40 PM.


9

#40 bladehunter

bladehunter

    Cubs win ! Cubs win!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,497 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 11744

Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:38 PM

View PostNRJyzr, on 07 November 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

I see this entire argument as much ado about nothing.  

The average distance of the entire Tour from 2004 thru 2017 certainly doesn't show any alarming trends
Year   Avg
2004  287.3
2005  288.9
2006  289.3
2007  289.1
2008  287.7
2009  288.1
2010  287.5
2011  291.1
2012  290.1
2013  288.0
2014  289.8
2015  290.2
2016  291.1
2017  293.0


Why so much fuss over a roll back then. ?   Is it placebo that is being clung to ?

Edited by bladehunter, 07 November 2017 - 01:38 PM.

17 M2  V2 Tour 10.5  Fuji Atmos Black 6X   Green Graphic special edition
17 M1 15  Graphite Design   ADDI 8X
Titleist TMB 2 Graphite Design 105X prototype
Vega VDC-01 Raw Handground 4-pw Modus 130X
Vega VW-02 Raw 52 56 60 S400
009 GSS 1.5  , Beached, tungsten sole weights

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#41 NRJyzr

NRJyzr

    new pup Sťamus

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,862 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72626
  • Joined: 01/12/2009
  • Location:Minnesota, USA
  • Ebay ID:n.r.jyzr
GolfWRX Likes : 4218

Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:45 PM

View Postnew2g0lf, on 07 November 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

When I posted comparisons on average distance over the last 15 years, I was told by some (possibly not you) that I had to go back to 98 to see the real impact of equipment on driving distances, that's 19 years and would be 20 before we see any action by the USGA.

I did a PGA Tour Driving Distance comparison like this a while back, using 1999 and 2002, to show the effect of the solid core ball on the game.  I used 99 because it was the last full year of wound balls, not counting the Strata, and 2002 as it was the first full season after most everyone switched.

Total distance change was 7.4 yds.  However, some of that is new players, who likely hit the ball farther than older guys who age out, so to speak.  When looking only at players who had stats in both seasons, the change was 5.5 yds.

Edited by NRJyzr, 09 November 2017 - 09:15 AM.

The Ever Changing Bag!

Driver:  King LTD, HZRDUS 75 6.5 at 44½" --or-- R9 SuperDeep, Motore F1 85 X at 43½"

3w:  Stage 2 Tour 14.5°, BiMatrix X at 42½"

3h Stage 2 Tour, NV105 S and 3-PW Golden Ram TW276, NV105 S
--or--
2-PW Golden Ram TW282, Precision 6.5

SW:  Ram TG-898 56°, NV105 S  --or--  Golden Ram TW282 56°, Precision 6.5
LW:  Maltby Design 60°, NV105 S  --or--  Maltby Design 60°, DGS300 tipped 1"
Putter:  Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35"
Balls:  in no particular order...  Wilson Staff FG Tour or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV, Vice Pro Neon
Shoes by New Balance
Pure Pro grips, various colors

11

#42 NRJyzr

NRJyzr

    new pup Sťamus

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,862 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72626
  • Joined: 01/12/2009
  • Location:Minnesota, USA
  • Ebay ID:n.r.jyzr
GolfWRX Likes : 4218

Posted 07 November 2017 - 01:49 PM

View Postbladehunter, on 07 November 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

View PostNRJyzr, on 07 November 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

I see this entire argument as much ado about nothing.  

The average distance of the entire Tour from 2004 thru 2017 certainly doesn't show any alarming trends
Year   Avg
2004  287.3
2005  288.9
2006  289.3
2007  289.1
2008  287.7
2009  288.1
2010  287.5
2011  291.1
2012  290.1
2013  288.0
2014  289.8
2015  290.2
2016  291.1
2017  293.0


Why so much fuss over a roll back then. ?   Is it placebo that is being clung to ?

On the part of some fans, I would guess it's the hero worship, pedestal, thing.  On the part of Jack and now Tiger, maybe it's hard to believe the new crop of players really are swinging that much harder?

Jack famously drove the ball thru the Old Course's 18th hole with persimmon and wound ball.  At age 50, he was hitting a wound ball 330-350 yds with a J's Professional Weapon.  Tiger was clocked swinging at 130mph with driver at one of those Monday night Sherwood events; if he'd chosen to optimize things, he could have been then hitting it past what the top guys do today.

Selective memory, perhaps?

That doesn't even account for all the classic reports of DL3 hitting Tour Balatas over the driving range nets at ANGC with his persimmon driver (nets were at 275).

Edited by NRJyzr, 07 November 2017 - 01:50 PM.

The Ever Changing Bag!

Driver:  King LTD, HZRDUS 75 6.5 at 44½" --or-- R9 SuperDeep, Motore F1 85 X at 43½"

3w:  Stage 2 Tour 14.5°, BiMatrix X at 42½"

3h Stage 2 Tour, NV105 S and 3-PW Golden Ram TW276, NV105 S
--or--
2-PW Golden Ram TW282, Precision 6.5

SW:  Ram TG-898 56°, NV105 S  --or--  Golden Ram TW282 56°, Precision 6.5
LW:  Maltby Design 60°, NV105 S  --or--  Maltby Design 60°, DGS300 tipped 1"
Putter:  Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35"
Balls:  in no particular order...  Wilson Staff FG Tour or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV, Vice Pro Neon
Shoes by New Balance
Pure Pro grips, various colors

12

#43 playa

playa

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,188 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 280775
  • Joined: 10/18/2013
GolfWRX Likes : 3825

Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:27 PM

View PostNJpatbee, on 07 November 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

The USGA has reasonable limits on golf equipment and there are plenty of courses that can handle a PGA Tournament.  The equipment today is longer than 30 years ago but lets remember that Jack hit a 341 yard drive in 1963 at the PGA Championship Long Drive Contest using a persimmon driver and a wound ball.  I say leave the limits where they are and for many courses have holes where a 340 yard drive better be right on the money - allow some deeper rough, more sand at the 300+ range, waste areas, and do not cut the fairways down so they roll like fast greens.   These are not mega-million dollar enhancements to courses and if you want to host the PGA at 6800 yards from the tips you can make it challenging.  It might mean some less than driver shots from the tee for the big hitters for some holes, and it might lengthen the career of some golfers (e.g. Tiger, Rory) who swing out of their shoes and punish their bodies.  Add some strategy instead of "bomb and gouge" on every hole.

The PGA Tour should get on board with not conditioning courses for their tournaments so DJ can carry and roll 370+ yards.   Keep the current limits and make the courses play more reasonable and there should be no problem for the pros obsoleting many courses.  And for the other 20 million golfers in the US we will continue to enjoy our average 215 yard drives (ummmm....275, I forgot I was posting on GolfWrx) from the proper tees.
Jack's 341 yard poke is legendary, but was it a real 341 yards? By that I mean was the fairway rock hard, was there a tail wind, was the fairway sloped downhill etc. How far did the runner up hit? I think some of the increases we see on tv are due to PGA courses with fairways running faster on the stimp than most clubs greens.
Distance isn't just down to the ball .

Edited by playa, 07 November 2017 - 02:28 PM.


13

#44 new2g0lf

new2g0lf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,872 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 114437
  • Joined: 09/06/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1117

Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:56 PM

View Postbladehunter, on 07 November 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

View PostNRJyzr, on 07 November 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

I see this entire argument as much ado about nothing.  

The average distance of the entire Tour from 2004 thru 2017 certainly doesn't show any alarming trends
Year   Avg
2004  287.3
2005  288.9
2006  289.3
2007  289.1
2008  287.7
2009  288.1
2010  287.5
2011  291.1
2012  290.1
2013  288.0
2014  289.8
2015  290.2
2016  291.1
2017  293.0


Why so much fuss over a roll back then. ?   Is it placebo that is being clung to ?

You tell us as you're part of the group asking for the rollback.

14

#45 bladehunter

bladehunter

    Cubs win ! Cubs win!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,497 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 11744

Posted 07 November 2017 - 03:53 PM

View Postnew2g0lf, on 07 November 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 07 November 2017 - 01:38 PM, said:

View PostNRJyzr, on 07 November 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

I see this entire argument as much ado about nothing.  

The average distance of the entire Tour from 2004 thru 2017 certainly doesn't show any alarming trends
Year   Avg
2004  287.3
2005  288.9
2006  289.3
2007  289.1
2008  287.7
2009  288.1
2010  287.5
2011  291.1
2012  290.1
2013  288.0
2014  289.8
2015  290.2
2016  291.1
2017  293.0


Why so much fuss over a roll back then. ?   Is it placebo that is being clung to ?

You tell us as you're part of the group asking for the rollback.

Lol.    Thought I had.  I've harped on driver size and the straight ball way more than distance.    I just think the data is flawed or else what gives ?

17 M2  V2 Tour 10.5  Fuji Atmos Black 6X   Green Graphic special edition
17 M1 15  Graphite Design   ADDI 8X
Titleist TMB 2 Graphite Design 105X prototype
Vega VDC-01 Raw Handground 4-pw Modus 130X
Vega VW-02 Raw 52 56 60 S400
009 GSS 1.5  , Beached, tungsten sole weights

15

#46 NJpatbee

NJpatbee

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,219 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 266092
  • Joined: 07/24/2013
  • Location:Sussex County, NJ
  • Handicap:17.5
GolfWRX Likes : 365

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:02 PM

View Postplaya, on 07 November 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

View PostNJpatbee, on 07 November 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

The USGA has reasonable limits on golf equipment and there are plenty of courses that can handle a PGA Tournament.  The equipment today is longer than 30 years ago but lets remember that Jack hit a 341 yard drive in 1963 at the PGA Championship Long Drive Contest using a persimmon driver and a wound ball.  I say leave the limits where they are and for many courses have holes where a 340 yard drive better be right on the money - allow some deeper rough, more sand at the 300+ range, waste areas, and do not cut the fairways down so they roll like fast greens.   These are not mega-million dollar enhancements to courses and if you want to host the PGA at 6800 yards from the tips you can make it challenging.  It might mean some less than driver shots from the tee for the big hitters for some holes, and it might lengthen the career of some golfers (e.g. Tiger, Rory) who swing out of their shoes and punish their bodies.  Add some strategy instead of "bomb and gouge" on every hole.

The PGA Tour should get on board with not conditioning courses for their tournaments so DJ can carry and roll 370+ yards.   Keep the current limits and make the courses play more reasonable and there should be no problem for the pros obsoleting many courses.  And for the other 20 million golfers in the US we will continue to enjoy our average 215 yard drives (ummmm....275, I forgot I was posting on GolfWrx) from the proper tees.
Jack's 341 yard poke is legendary, but was it a real 341 yards? By that I mean was the fairway rock hard, was there a tail wind, was the fairway sloped downhill etc. How far did the runner up hit? I think some of the increases we see on tv are due to PGA courses with fairways running faster on the stimp than most clubs greens.
Distance isn't just down to the ball .

I cannot find the specifics about the 1963 conditions but I did find the following in a PGA article:

"And if you think today's golfers are the undisputed kings of distance, check this out: The Bear won in 1963 in Dallas with a knock of 341 yards, and in 1964 in Columbus with a drive of 308 yards – in the rain! For both of those drives, Nicklaus swung a persimmon-headed driver with 11 degrees of loft and used a wound Titleist golf ball."

16

#47 iutodd

iutodd

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 367117
  • Joined: 03/19/2015
  • Location:STL
GolfWRX Likes : 24

Posted 07 November 2017 - 04:29 PM

View Postlil, on 06 November 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

I do think when they are winning tournaments at like 20 under or more than the course is too easy.  Now if only one player is at like 20 under and the rest is like 12 under than that is different as you could say that golfer is just hot and hitting them very well.  Even this past weekend LPGA tournament was won by someone at 19 under with others close behind so I guess there is no more tournaments being won at par or even 4-5 under anymore!

Every year it seems that there are between 5-10 tournaments that have a winning score in the single digits under par.  We've already had two this fall: Justin Thomas and Patrick Cantlay both won tournaments at -9.  

During the summer of 2016...the Masters, the US Open and the Bridgestone were won by -5, -4 and -6 respectively.  Also that year Charl Schwartzel won the Valspar at -7.  Sneds won the Farmers in 2016 at a -6 score.

In 2017 was a good scoring year.  Sergio won the Masters at -9, Kyle Stanley won the Quicken Loans at -7, Justin Thomas won the PGA at -8...and that was it - though there were 4-5 tournaments won by a score of -10.  

I would submit that a tournament won at -10 is hardly a shootout...

17

#48 iutodd

iutodd

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 367117
  • Joined: 03/19/2015
  • Location:STL
GolfWRX Likes : 24

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:24 PM

I think rolling back the balls is ridiculous from a distance perspective.

Today's golfers, more than ever, are freaking athletes.  They work out, they study their swing with technology that Jack and Arnie would have regarded as far fetched for Star Trek back in the 60s and 70s.  If you gave Justin Thomas Tiger's driver from 2001 and a Nike Tour Accuracy ball...guess what?  He'd still figure out a way to hit it 315-330 yards - because he's an athlete, there is crazy technology and he'll figure it out.  Tiger could hit it 315 in 2001...I'm not saying that any athlete today is equivalent to Tiger...but for damn sure today they have a lot of tech and training to get there...

It's just the way it is now.  These guys are just incredibly strong and flexible.  And I think "dialing the ball back" is a patently stupid and remarkably heavy-handed way of dealing with this "problem".  

I do wonder if something could be done about spin rates.  Tiger said something about that in his interview with Geno...the balls spin less than they used to and you see it on protracer.  Guys hit the ball dead freaking straight with the driver and have less fear of big giant misses than they used to...so they swing harder.  And we haven't even talked about shaft technology massively improving.

I have no idea how they'd legislate that though since every player is different and I don't know what kind of a physical change they could legislatively put in a box.  Set up a standardized robot swing with a driver and say that nothing under 2300 rpm is allowed or something?  They can't limit swing speed.  Could they change the COR rules and walk them back over time?

18

#49 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,785 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3618

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:31 PM

View Postiutodd, on 07 November 2017 - 05:24 PM, said:

I think rolling back the balls is ridiculous from a distance perspective.

Today's golfers, more than ever, are freaking athletes.  They work out, they study their swing with technology that Jack and Arnie would have regarded as far fetched for Star Trek back in the 60s and 70s.  If you gave Justin Thomas Tiger's driver from 2001 and a Nike Tour Accuracy ball...guess what?  He'd still figure out a way to hit it 315-330 yards - because he's an athlete, there is crazy technology and he'll figure it out.  Tiger could hit it 315 in 2001...I'm not saying that any athlete today is equivalent to Tiger...but for damn sure today they have a lot of tech and training to get there...

It's just the way it is now.  These guys are just incredibly strong and flexible.  And I think "dialing the ball back" is a patently stupid and remarkably heavy-handed way of dealing with this "problem".  

I do wonder if something could be done about spin rates.  Tiger said something about that in his interview with Geno...the balls spin less than they used to and you see it on protracer.  Guys hit the ball dead freaking straight with the driver and have less fear of big giant misses than they used to...so they swing harder.  And we haven't even talked about shaft technology massively improving.

I have no idea how they'd legislate that though since every player is different and I don't know what kind of a physical change they could legislatively put in a box.  Set up a standardized robot swing with a driver and say that nothing under 2300 rpm is allowed or something?  They can't limit swing speed.  Could they change the COR rules and walk them back over time?

They could certainly make a ball that Dustin Johnson can't hit but 250 yards if they wanted to. It would just be stupid. But hey it would make Jack and Tiger happy.
Engaged in the eternal search for the elusive Swedish meatball cores...

19

#50 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,107 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:4.0
GolfWRX Likes : 4883

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:37 PM

View Postlil, on 06 November 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

Whether it is the ball or clubs, maybe some of both.  I think they can change the course somewhat and make it tougher not longer like more dog legs, more tree's in target lines, more hazards a bit taller grass on fairways without making them firmer, taller rough, etc.

If they roll back the ball that is fine too as long as it is a 'tour" only ball which us guys don't have to play!  It's not like we can play their equipment so why play there ball!

I do think when they are winning tournaments at like 20 under or more than the course is too easy.  Now if only one player is at like 20 under and the rest is like 12 under than that is different as you could say that golfer is just hot and hitting them very well.  Even this past weekend LPGA tournament was won by someone at 19 under with others close behind so I guess there is no more tournaments being won at par or even 4-5 under anymore!
Wanting to see the pros shoot every or one under per round is like preferring to watch your local rec league basketball rather than the NBA. Why would you want to watch the best players in the world shot scores you can see at your local club. The guys on tour shooting 66 are often doing so on courses rated 8-10 strokes harder than the local muni.

TM M1 8.5* Graphite Design BB6s
TM M1 3w 14*  Kuro Kage 70X
Srixon U65 18° Atmos Red 7s
Adams A12 UST Silver S 21°
Srixon Z765 5-PW Nippon Pro Modus3 125S
Cleveland  RTX CB 50* 54* 58* Nippon 125 wedge
Toulon Garage Rochester

To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened .  :)

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#51 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,107 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:4.0
GolfWRX Likes : 4883

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:45 PM

View Postcristphoto, on 07 November 2017 - 12:26 PM, said:

View Postcaniac6, on 06 November 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

Why don't Tiger and Jack say anything about big titanium drivers with graphite shafts? My old Toney Penna with a steel shaft was much harder to hit. Why not have standard lofts on irons equal to lofts from the 70s or 80s? I think Byron Nelson said the biggest change was the lob wedge. He said it allowed players to attack pins that they could not. Why not max wedge lofts at 56? There are a lot of things that can be done to make the game harder, and dial back distance. Why do they just say dial back the ball?

Bingo.  Reduce the size of the driver on tour to maybe 350cc, shorten the shaft an inch or so and let the pros work a bit more to find the sweet spot. Also no need to make new courses 7500 yards or more. Simply put more doglegs starting at 250-275 yards and let the pros try to work the ball more if they want to bang driver. This would have zero effect on the amateur golfers.
350cc would not affect the pros in the least. Hank Kuehne averaged 321 in 2003. The same year the titleist 983k was introduced at 365cc.
TM M1 8.5* Graphite Design BB6s
TM M1 3w 14*  Kuro Kage 70X
Srixon U65 18° Atmos Red 7s
Adams A12 UST Silver S 21°
Srixon Z765 5-PW Nippon Pro Modus3 125S
Cleveland  RTX CB 50* 54* 58* Nippon 125 wedge
Toulon Garage Rochester

To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened .  :)

21

#52 Matt J

Matt J

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,909 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 339857
  • Joined: 09/17/2014
  • Location:United States
GolfWRX Likes : 11028

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:48 PM

Biodegradable golf balls.  Look forward not back.

22

#53 Hubijerk

Hubijerk

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 305901
  • Joined: 04/05/2014
  • Location:Las Vegas
  • Handicap:0
  • Ebay ID:hubijerk2p7b
GolfWRX Likes : 170

Posted 07 November 2017 - 05:49 PM

I don't think the ball is the problem... Take the Shriners Tourney last wknd. for example...  Typically that's a turkey shoot, lots of stupid low rounds and absurd scores... However this year, the rough was just a little bit longer, and while it was windy day 3, it was not absurdly windy the other days and in fact I would still say it was actually less than typical.  The greens were maybe a bit faster but with the longer rough made putting the ball close tough from it and if you found yourself in the wrong spot you were struggling for par.  Same course, most of the same players, way different scores from last year.

You can set the course up to make par a good score for even the best players, but that is not how they choose to set up the courses most weeks.  I have played quite a few PGA tour courses both in typical condition and in PGA Tour shape and truthfully, a majority of the time, I found the PGA set up to be easier.  Mostly due to how consistent the conditions were and in a few cases the rough was actually lower or almost non existent and the fringe was expanded quite a bit which turned small misses into birdie chances as opposed to tricky chips out of green edge rough.

Some well placed trees are another way toadjust scores... Again, at the Shriners... #9 is an easy par 5, downhill, usually downwind or off the right... But from the tips it get's very tight the further you try to stretch it.  At 270 you have about 40 yards of usable space and short of the left fairway bunker that gives you a clean 2nd shot.  But at that distance you have a very poor chance of getting home in 2.  Take driver and bomb the new big drivers and balls that fly too far down there and you are now looking at a 20 yard landing zone at 300 yards where the majority of the big hitters can put it... Now the select few who can fly it 315+ have given themselves a whpoping 25 yard wide landing zone.  a few yards right or left of these areas put's you in tree trouble and force a lay up or could possibly lead you down a path of disaster..

Easy downhill, downwind par 5 that is not that easy because of good tree and bunker placement for the tee shot.  In my opinion blaming the ball is a cop-out.  The scores are low because the tour wants them low, thus sets up the courses as such.
You can't sneak the cheese by a rat

23

#54 Leftofleft

Leftofleft

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 451658
  • Joined: 01/14/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 7

Posted 08 November 2017 - 01:30 PM

So sick of course designers complaining about the ball.

Also, wouldn't rolling the ball back favor power players even more?

24

#55 Uhit

Uhit

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 60

Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:14 PM

View PostLeftofleft, on 08 November 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

So sick of course designers complaining about the ball.

Also, wouldn't rolling the ball back favor power players even more?

The funny thing is, that you can be sure, that much more courses would become too long (instead about right), with a even further restricted ball!

Imagine you would have to play your course with a in distance restricted range ball...

...and / or the tour players would hit the ball not as far, as you! :to_become_senile:

Edited by Uhit, 08 November 2017 - 03:15 PM.


25

#56 coachemup

coachemup

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 20316
  • Joined: 10/06/2006
  • Location:Corpus Christi, TX
  • Handicap:1.4
GolfWRX Likes : 25

Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:29 PM

I really dislike even commenting on these type of topics because the answer is there is no real answer.  With that said, I do believe there is technology in place to create a golf ball that limits the flight of a guy who swings 120 (lets say 20%), but only limits a guy who swings 95 (lets say 5%).  I am not a mathematician so I have no idea what that would equate to in terms of distance, but to my logical mind anyway, it would lessen the divide between the 2 players (off the tee anyway).

While on the subject of distance, lets assume they limit the distance a ball can be hit with the driver by putting further limits on the driver.  In reality, they would have to do it with every club in the bag.  Why?  Every week you see these guys hitting 300 yard 3 woods, 290 yard driving irons and hybrids, etc...  Limit my driver so I will just take it out of the bag and hit 3 wood off every tee mentality.

And then we have the golf courses themselves.  I am lucky to have played many courses where PGA Tour Events are held (mostly in Texas) and I must say the courses are easier to play when in Tournament conditions than the other 11 months out of the year.  I will take 40 yards of roll in the fairways, greens cut down to the bare minimum where alot of the grain is removed and where balls roll true almost every time.  To me, this in itself takes off at least 5 strokes.  I can say that because I have been there and done that.

While on courses, costs to run them are going thru the roof.  There is alot of talk in this thread about growing the rough, making the greens faster etc...  Let me just tell you that you increasing the running costs.  How can letting grass grow increase the running costs???  Easy, in Texas anyway, you will spend money of fertilizer to grow it in because of the lack of rain we get here.  No rain also means more watering.  No rain and the course lakes not filling up means paying the city for water.  Not sure if you guys are happy with your own water bill or not, but just imagine having to pay the city to water a golf course when temps are in the 100's from May thru October.  

Like I said earlier, we could all talk about this until the end of time and there will still be no right or wrong answer.  I would like to test a golf ball that is roll backed though and see for myself what I could shoot at Colonial, TPC San Antonio, etc...
Driver- Bridgestone J33P
3 Wood- Bridegstone J33
Irons- Hogan Fort Worth 20-45
Wedges- Hogan 50, 55, 60
Putter- Crenshaw Hand Ground Custom
Ball- Bridgestone RX

26

#57 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,785 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3618

Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:37 PM

View Postcoachemup, on 08 November 2017 - 03:29 PM, said:

I really dislike even commenting on these type of topics because the answer is there is no real answer.  With that said, I do believe there is technology in place to create a golf ball that limits the flight of a guy who swings 120 (lets say 20%), but only limits a guy who swings 95 (lets say 5%).  I am not a mathematician so I have no idea what that would equate to in terms of distance, but to my logical mind anyway, it would lessen the divide between the 2 players (off the tee anyway).

While on the subject of distance, lets assume they limit the distance a ball can be hit with the driver by putting further limits on the driver.  In reality, they would have to do it with every club in the bag.  Why?  Every week you see these guys hitting 300 yard 3 woods, 290 yard driving irons and hybrids, etc...  Limit my driver so I will just take it out of the bag and hit 3 wood off every tee mentality.

And then we have the golf courses themselves.  I am lucky to have played many courses where PGA Tour Events are held (mostly in Texas) and I must say the courses are easier to play when in Tournament conditions than the other 11 months out of the year.  I will take 40 yards of roll in the fairways, greens cut down to the bare minimum where alot of the grain is removed and where balls roll true almost every time.  To me, this in itself takes off at least 5 strokes.  I can say that because I have been there and done that.

While on courses, costs to run them are going thru the roof.  There is alot of talk in this thread about growing the rough, making the greens faster etc...  Let me just tell you that you increasing the running costs.  How can letting grass grow increase the running costs???  Easy, in Texas anyway, you will spend money of fertilizer to grow it in because of the lack of rain we get here.  No rain also means more watering.  No rain and the course lakes not filling up means paying the city for water.  Not sure if you guys are happy with your own water bill or not, but just imagine having to pay the city to water a golf course when temps are in the 100's from May thru October.  

Like I said earlier, we could all talk about this until the end of time and there will still be no right or wrong answer.  I would like to test a golf ball that is roll backed though and see for myself what I could shoot at Colonial, TPC San Antonio, etc...

In other words, it seems to you that somebody somewhere ought to make Dustin Johnson stop making you look weak. Maybe with a magic golf ball that punishes big hitters, where presumably "big hitter" starts just beyond whatever clubhead speed you personally have.

Am I right?

For my part I'm all for a magic golf ball that limits everyone to hitting the same 6-iron from 150 yards as I do, keeps anyone from driving it more than 220 yards and also maybe every third or fourth 3-foot putt be pushed and miss the hole. It's only fair and it would certainly cure everything that ails today's game!

Edited by North Butte, 08 November 2017 - 03:39 PM.

Engaged in the eternal search for the elusive Swedish meatball cores...

27

#58 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,785 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3618

Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:52 PM

Fifteen years ago the online chatter was full of claims that the ProV1 and similar balls gave "exponential" extra distance (that's the term that was popular, very scientific sounding) to anyone with more than some certain clubhead speed. Back then people probably thought of that as over 110mph or something that seems ridiculously mediocre today.

Of course there was no such thing, there was no magic hyper-boost to a ProV1 propelling it prodigious distances only once a certain threshold was reached. Nowadays that same bloody-minded argument is turned around to call for the opposite kind of magic golf ball. One that will go a certain distance (what do you have in mind, maybe 260 yards? 280 yards?) with moderate clubhead speeds and then not go any farther no matter how hard someone hits it.

But the impulse between those two bits of fantasy is exactly the same. For some people, the idea that being able to swing faster and hit the ball harder will create more distance IN EXACT PROPORTION TO CLUBHEAD SPEED (as it does with real-world non-magical golf balls) somehow ruins the game for the rest of us.
Engaged in the eternal search for the elusive Swedish meatball cores...

28

#59 coachemup

coachemup

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 20316
  • Joined: 10/06/2006
  • Location:Corpus Christi, TX
  • Handicap:1.4
GolfWRX Likes : 25

Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:53 PM

North Butte,

To be 100% honest with you, I could care less what Dustin Johnson hits off the tee or how much longer he is than I am.  I am not playing Dustin Johnson when I go to the golf course.  I am playing the golf course. And I would much prefer to pay $30 a round than $100 due to the course having to spend $3 million on improvements every year to keep up with technology.

I am a baseball guy by trade and I am glad they limited MLB by making the players use wooden bats and by making all pitchers throw the same ball.  Some people keep saying it would be "impossible" to do that in golf.  I just don't believe that is the case.
Driver- Bridgestone J33P
3 Wood- Bridegstone J33
Irons- Hogan Fort Worth 20-45
Wedges- Hogan 50, 55, 60
Putter- Crenshaw Hand Ground Custom
Ball- Bridgestone RX

29

#60 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,785 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 3618

Posted 08 November 2017 - 03:56 PM

View Postcoachemup, on 08 November 2017 - 03:53 PM, said:

North Butte,

To be 100% honest with you, I could care less what Dustin Johnson hits off the tee or how much longer he is than I am.  I am not playing Dustin Johnson when I go to the golf course.  I am playing the golf course. And I would much prefer to pay $30 a round than $100 due to the course having to spend $3 million on improvements every year to keep up with technology.

I am a baseball guy by trade and I am glad they limited MLB by making the players use wooden bats and by making all pitchers throw the same ball.  Some people keep saying it would be "impossible" to do that in golf.  I just don't believe that is the case.

Sure, the Tour could use wooden clubs and balata balls Just Like Jack. Problem is, nobody buying tickets or watching on TV wants to see that.

I suggest not playing courses that spend millions of dollars expanding themselves indefinitely. My own club hasn't gotten significantly longer in the past half century and isn't going to in the next few decades, either.

P.S. And it isn't like some golf course that just lengthened itself at great expense to 7,600 yards would somehow un-lengthen and get a refund back on their money if the Tour started hitting whiffle balls. What are they going to do, build houses where the back tees are now on each hole?

Edited by North Butte, 08 November 2017 - 03:58 PM.

Engaged in the eternal search for the elusive Swedish meatball cores...

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



4 user(s) are reading this topic

2 members, 1 guests, 1 anonymous users


    North Butte, Bad9

GolfWRX Sponsors