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.

- - - - -

"Ball goes too far" what ball am I missing


72 replies to this topic

#31 new2g0lf

new2g0lf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,901 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 114437
  • Joined: 09/06/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1998

Posted 08 December 2017 - 12:02 PM

View PostMahamilto, on 07 December 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

I just don't know why its a problem if they shoot -20.

I love watching what these guys can do with the golf ball.

Hell... I miss box grooves and guys sucking the ball back 40' on the regular.

Because it hurts the course designers feelings when guys shoot low on their course.  Els was hoping for a lot of wind during the Hero Challenge to prevent the guys from shooting low scores.  Using wind as the courses major defense is short sighted because on days when there is no wind the course is nearly defenseless.  Tiger and Jack complain about the distance because some of their courses aren't well protected and don't discourage bombing the ball.

Driver - Ping G400 MAX 10.5*
Woods - XXIO 10 3W
Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
Irons - Home - Callaway Epic 5-SW Away - Ping i500 5-AW
Wedge - Vokey TVD 56* K Grind
Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#32 Metro-PA

Metro-PA

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 418850
  • Joined: 04/03/2016
  • Location:SF Bay Area
  • Handicap:4
GolfWRX Likes : 32

Posted 09 December 2017 - 01:00 AM

View Postnew2g0lf, on 08 December 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

View PostMahamilto, on 07 December 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

I just don't know why its a problem if they shoot -20.

I love watching what these guys can do with the golf ball.

Hell... I miss box grooves and guys sucking the ball back 40' on the regular.

Because it hurts the course designers feelings when guys shoot low on their course.  Els was hoping for a lot of wind during the Hero Challenge to prevent the guys from shooting low scores.  Using wind as the courses major defense is short sighted because on days when there is no wind the course is nearly defenseless.  Tiger and Jack complain about the distance because some of their courses aren't well protected and don't discourage bombing the ball.

As long as sponsor money roles  in.... do you think “they” really care if the winning score is -20 or -5....  Don’t kid yourself.

2

#33 NRJyzr

NRJyzr

    Certified Blade Chump

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,769 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72626
  • Joined: 01/12/2009
  • Location:Minnesota, USA
  • Handicap:7
  • Ebay ID:n.r.jyzr
GolfWRX Likes : 5237

Posted 09 December 2017 - 10:06 AM

View Postjmck, on 08 December 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

View PostSean2, on 08 December 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

There are a lot of implications to rolling back the ball and or bifurcation:

--if they stopped cutting and rolling the fairways at tournaments we wouldn't see that 30/40 yards of roll
--TV networks would not want to see it...distance attracts viewers
--the vast majority of recreational golfers only hit it 215 yards or so. Yes, roll back the ball.
--If bifurcation, what about kids with some aptitude for the game? What ball should they play? Elite amateurs? College golfers? What ball would they use in tournaments? Imagine playing one ball your entire life and then having to switch to a roll-back ball if you make it professionally.

The entire argument is idiotic. Stop cutting and rolling fairways, narrow the fairways, beef up the rough, etc. Courses don't need to be made longer. The ball doesn't need to be rolled back. What does need to happen is for the USGA to get its head out of its *ss.

While I by and large agree with this Sean, let's not forget that this is only a topic of discussion because the USGA has had its head up its *ss for decades.  The ball should've been limited back when wound balls became obsolete.  The USGA should've been prepared for that, and had a set of rules about ball performance ready to go.  Instead they've limited drivers and wedge grooves as hasty overreactions to conditions that were actually more attributable to improvements in ball tech.  If they had the foresight to limit the ball there would've been no need to limit driver COR or mess around with groove specs.

Posted Image

Golf ball testing has been in place for decades, well before the advent of the solid core ball.  It's called the ODS, the Overall Distance Standard.  In the past, golf balls were tested with a swingspeed of 109mph, and the upper limit was 280 yds.  There was a tolerance allowed that made the "real" limit 296 yards.

After the solid core balls came into being and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over concerns that higher swingspeeds were gaining greater benefit from the new breed of golfballs, a change was made to the ODS.  They increased the test clubhead speed to 120 mph, and recalculated the upper distance limit.

When they recalculated the limit, the former tolerance was eliminated; the new limit is absolute.  And, the new limit results in allowing golfballs to travel fewer yards per mph of clubhead speed than was previously allowed under the earlier ODS.

Meaning, the ball has already been rolled back.  Over a dozen years ago.

The sky is not falling.

Edited by NRJyzr, 09 December 2017 - 10:10 AM.

The Ever Changing Bag!

Driver:  Tour Edge XCG7 Beta, Fuji Motore F3 80 X, 43.5"
3w:  Cobra King LTD, Motore F1 85 X, 42.5"
2h:  TM Stage2 Tour, NV105 S
2-PW, Golden Ram Tour Grind, Dynamic S
SW:  Acer XB 58*, DGS300 tipped
Testing:  4-SW Pinhawk SL irons, DGS400, 37" (oh my!), w/Maltby 60° LW
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, 34.5", PP58 midsize grip
(Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35" -or- Mizuno TPM-2, 35" as backups)
Balls:  in no particular order...  Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV
   will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time
Shoes by True Linkswear

3

#34 new2g0lf

new2g0lf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,901 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 114437
  • Joined: 09/06/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1998

Posted 09 December 2017 - 11:07 AM

View PostMetro-PA, on 09 December 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

View Postnew2g0lf, on 08 December 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

View PostMahamilto, on 07 December 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

I just don't know why its a problem if they shoot -20.

I love watching what these guys can do with the golf ball.

Hell... I miss box grooves and guys sucking the ball back 40' on the regular.

Because it hurts the course designers feelings when guys shoot low on their course.  Els was hoping for a lot of wind during the Hero Challenge to prevent the guys from shooting low scores.  Using wind as the courses major defense is short sighted because on days when there is no wind the course is nearly defenseless.  Tiger and Jack complain about the distance because some of their courses aren't well protected and don't discourage bombing the ball.

As long as sponsor money roles  in.... do you think “they” really care if the winning score is -20 or -5....  Don’t kid yourself.

I think they happily count their money but they'd prefer to see their courses played closer to par.  Pete Dye and the USGA created the mentality that good course design should keep the best players near par and that persists today.

The USGA wouldn't trick out courses and greens to keep the scores close to par if they didn't believe a good course is a difficult course.
Driver - Ping G400 MAX 10.5*
Woods - XXIO 10 3W
Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
Irons - Home - Callaway Epic 5-SW Away - Ping i500 5-AW
Wedge - Vokey TVD 56* K Grind
Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB

4

#35 Ed Settle

Ed Settle

    #InsideTMAG

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 5,362 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 64299
  • Joined: 08/27/2008
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • Handicap:8.7
GolfWRX Likes : 1728

Posted 10 December 2017 - 10:57 PM

View PostDavePelz4, on 07 December 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

Over on BowlingWRX.com there is a huge debate ongoing about GPS Navigational Solid a cover stock as related to it's radius of gyration. It's just insane stuff.

That and they are going to start using recycled motor oil on the lanes.

Twitter: @Ed_Settle

Driver: TM 2018 M3 460 10.5 Graphite Design IZ-6 X
Fairway 3w: TM 2016 Tour Issue M2 3/15* Graphite Design Tour Series F 7S
Fairway 5w:TM 2017 M2 Tour 5/18* Graphite Design GP shaft
Driving Iron: TM P-790 4/23* KBS Proto Hyb 85S
Irons: Testing: New Level 4-PW Nippon Modus 105 S
Wedges: New Level 50/54/TM 60 Hi-Toe Modus 115 Wedge
Putter: Toulon Garage Austin 34.5, Garage Columbus 34”, Garage Rochester 34", First Run Madison #11/100 34", Garage Colts Blue Indianapolis 34"
Ball: TM TP5
Bag: Vessel Black 14 way carry

My WITB

5

#36 grm24

grm24

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,558 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 4801
  • Joined: 08/09/2005
  • Location:Western PA
GolfWRX Likes : 2048

Posted 10 December 2017 - 11:23 PM

View PostNRJyzr, on 09 December 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 08 December 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

View PostSean2, on 08 December 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

There are a lot of implications to rolling back the ball and or bifurcation:

--if they stopped cutting and rolling the fairways at tournaments we wouldn't see that 30/40 yards of roll
--TV networks would not want to see it...distance attracts viewers
--the vast majority of recreational golfers only hit it 215 yards or so. Yes, roll back the ball.
--If bifurcation, what about kids with some aptitude for the game? What ball should they play? Elite amateurs? College golfers? What ball would they use in tournaments? Imagine playing one ball your entire life and then having to switch to a roll-back ball if you make it professionally.

The entire argument is idiotic. Stop cutting and rolling fairways, narrow the fairways, beef up the rough, etc. Courses don't need to be made longer. The ball doesn't need to be rolled back. What does need to happen is for the USGA to get its head out of its *ss.

While I by and large agree with this Sean, let's not forget that this is only a topic of discussion because the USGA has had its head up its *ss for decades.  The ball should've been limited back when wound balls became obsolete.  The USGA should've been prepared for that, and had a set of rules about ball performance ready to go.  Instead they've limited drivers and wedge grooves as hasty overreactions to conditions that were actually more attributable to improvements in ball tech.  If they had the foresight to limit the ball there would've been no need to limit driver COR or mess around with groove specs.

Posted Image

Golf ball testing has been in place for decades, well before the advent of the solid core ball.  It's called the ODS, the Overall Distance Standard.  In the past, golf balls were tested with a swingspeed of 109mph, and the upper limit was 280 yds.  There was a tolerance allowed that made the "real" limit 296 yards.

After the solid core balls came into being and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over concerns that higher swingspeeds were gaining greater benefit from the new breed of golfballs, a change was made to the ODS.  They increased the test clubhead speed to 120 mph, and recalculated the upper distance limit.

When they recalculated the limit, the former tolerance was eliminated; the new limit is absolute.  And, the new limit results in allowing golfballs to travel fewer yards per mph of clubhead speed than was previously allowed under the earlier ODS.

Meaning, the ball has already been rolled back.  Over a dozen years ago.

The sky is not falling.
As always you are right on it.

Edited by grm24, 13 December 2017 - 01:15 AM.


6

#37 jmck

jmck

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 66331
  • Joined: 09/23/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 3153

Posted 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM

View PostNRJyzr, on 09 December 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 08 December 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

View PostSean2, on 08 December 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

There are a lot of implications to rolling back the ball and or bifurcation:

--if they stopped cutting and rolling the fairways at tournaments we wouldn't see that 30/40 yards of roll
--TV networks would not want to see it...distance attracts viewers
--the vast majority of recreational golfers only hit it 215 yards or so. Yes, roll back the ball.
--If bifurcation, what about kids with some aptitude for the game? What ball should they play? Elite amateurs? College golfers? What ball would they use in tournaments? Imagine playing one ball your entire life and then having to switch to a roll-back ball if you make it professionally.

The entire argument is idiotic. Stop cutting and rolling fairways, narrow the fairways, beef up the rough, etc. Courses don't need to be made longer. The ball doesn't need to be rolled back. What does need to happen is for the USGA to get its head out of its *ss.

While I by and large agree with this Sean, let's not forget that this is only a topic of discussion because the USGA has had its head up its *ss for decades.  The ball should've been limited back when wound balls became obsolete.  The USGA should've been prepared for that, and had a set of rules about ball performance ready to go.  Instead they've limited drivers and wedge grooves as hasty overreactions to conditions that were actually more attributable to improvements in ball tech.  If they had the foresight to limit the ball there would've been no need to limit driver COR or mess around with groove specs.

Posted Image

Golf ball testing has been in place for decades, well before the advent of the solid core ball.  It's called the ODS, the Overall Distance Standard.  In the past, golf balls were tested with a swingspeed of 109mph, and the upper limit was 280 yds.  There was a tolerance allowed that made the "real" limit 296 yards.

After the solid core balls came into being and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over concerns that higher swingspeeds were gaining greater benefit from the new breed of golfballs, a change was made to the ODS.  They increased the test clubhead speed to 120 mph, and recalculated the upper distance limit.

When they recalculated the limit, the former tolerance was eliminated; the new limit is absolute.  And, the new limit results in allowing golfballs to travel fewer yards per mph of clubhead speed than was previously allowed under the earlier ODS.

Meaning, the ball has already been rolled back.  Over a dozen years ago.

The sky is not falling.

Yeah, I'm aware of all of that.  But by focusing on ball speed only both you and the USGA are missing the point.  

296 yards leads the tour in driving distance every year until John Daly shows up.  296 yards finishes #1, 2, or 3 in driving distance every year from when Daly shows up in '91, through Tiger showing up in '97, up to the last full year without the ProV (2000).  Currently 296 yards gets you 87th place in driving distance.  Yes, I'm aware that fitness, driver tech, and agronomy play a role in that.  Yes I'm aware that the current ball speed limit gets you 317 yards (currently 15th place in driving distance) at 120mph.  Yes I'm aware that 120/317 limit is--technically speaking--fewer yards per mph of clubhead speed than the 296 limit.  You are indeed technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct, but it's still missing the point.

The point is, when people talk about "rolling back the ball" they're not talking only about the relation between clubhead mph and ball speed.  To roll back the ball you don't have to touch that relationship at all.  All you need to do is add spin.  Just set a minimum spin # on that 120mph s/s test.  That's all it takes.  Set minimum spin to 3000 or 3250 or 3500 and everything else takes care of itself.  Driver distance comes down a bit just because of pure physics, but it also comes down a bit because that extra ~1000 rpm makes the ball curve more, which makes pros swing a little slower because the spinier ball is a little harder control.  So now you have more of a premium on accuracy off the tee.  Actual shot making returns with the irons, rather than just being limited to Bubba Watson.  No more mucking with groove rules or having to replace wedges every few months.  No need to build 8000 yard courses or lengthen every course this side of Merion. No need for a tournament ball made by one company and all the lawsuits that would involve.  No need to bifurcate the rules because you're just adding one rule for everyone.  Titleist could even sell high spin and low spin versions of the ProV right next to each other on the shelf (with the exact same ball speeds) and amateurs and tournament committees could make their own choice.  (Though really Joe Twenty Handicap with the 90 mph swing is almost certainly better off playing the higher spin version anyway).

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  

Though like I said earlier, the toothpaste is out of the tube.

7

#38 ThunderBuzzworth

ThunderBuzzworth

    Hulk... Smash!!

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,188 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 132069
  • Joined: 06/30/2011
  • Location:Metro Detroit
  • Handicap:+3
GolfWRX Likes : 2066

Posted 12 December 2017 - 09:39 PM

Maybe I am missing something but how could there possibly be a floor on spin rate? Someone that has a square attack angle will naturally spin the ball less than someone that hits down on it if all else is equal.
Current WITB

Taylormade 2016 M1 7.8* (Tensei Pro white 80tx)
Titleist 917 F3 15* (Tensei Pro white 90tx)
Titleist 716 TMB 19* (DG X100)
Callaway 18í X Forged 4-PW (KBS $ Taper 130)
Titleist Vokey SM6 50F black (x100)
Titleist Vokey TVD 55K black (x100)
Titleist Vokey SM7 60D black (x100)
Taylormade Spider Tour Black 34Ē
Srixon Z Star XV 17í Yellow

8

#39 storm319

storm319

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 99866
  • Joined: 12/07/2009
  • Location:US
GolfWRX Likes : 627

Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:08 PM

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  

Sorry, but your suggestion would not solve this perceived "problem" nor is it a realistic limitation. Not only that, but testing every combination of club head speed, angle of attack, club face angle, and impact location on each ball submission would be impossible for the USGA/R&A to accomplish. Even if they decided on a testing benchmark, a different set of swing variables could have completely different results. If the USGA/R&A decide the rollback the ball, they will do so by reducing the maximum allowable weight in an attempt to reduce ball speed (which they did in 1931 before reverting back a year later due to public displeasure). If they move forward with a rollback, it will be 10 times the cf that the groove rollback was (which accomplished nothing at the highest levels I might add).

Do people realize that this distance argument has been going on for approximately 100 years? The initial USGA limitations of minimum diameter, maximum weight, dimple and overall symmetry originated in 1921 with an increase in minimum diameter and decrease in maximum weight in 1931 (weight decrease repealed a year later). The last limitations to initial ball velocity and the distance standard were put into place in 1976. Essentially the solid core, multilayer ball has been subject to the same limitations that the longstanding wound ball was, it was simply more efficient in every way which is why wound balls are now extinct. Since that paradigm shift (along with club head limitations during the same period), distance increases have remained stagnant.

The pro-rollback supporters are simply nostalgic for and/or attempting to protect the legacy of the "golden age" or the 60's and 70's. Hopefully the USGA/R&A will continue their course of doing nothing and avoid another unjustified rollback. Just about everything of substance related to equipment has been limited to this point so the game simply just needs to be left alone.

Edited by storm319, 12 December 2017 - 11:11 PM.


9

#40 grm24

grm24

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,558 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 4801
  • Joined: 08/09/2005
  • Location:Western PA
GolfWRX Likes : 2048

Posted 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#41 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,532 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 18131

Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:07 AM

View Postgrm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.


well.... sure.. BUT same argument can be used now to be in favor of the rollback....  no way that the current ball is equitable for all swing speeds as is....  slower you swing the easier it is to reach the magical +4 +5 aoa numbers.... spin comes wayyy down then and carry goes wayy up for any speed with the current ball and its ability to get to sub 2000 rpms... ....  very rare to see a guy swinging 120 with that type aoa... so its stacked currently to even up the fields...  fair isnt fair... or is it that current tech isnt fair ?  maybe rollback woildnt be fair either..but it wont be any more unfair thats for sure...

edit- whcih is why im still in favor of driver size rollback more so than ball....  take the head back to 360cc or less and shrink 3 wood back down too  and we wont see as many swing all out... problem solved...distance potential is still there but realistically far fewer guys acheive the 320 carries we see now ...
and for those of you who say that doesnt matter... why are you playing that huge driver then ? i can tell you why.. it hits the ball straighter and you can miss it all over and still get good distance...

Edited by bladehunter, 13 December 2017 - 08:13 AM.

Callaway Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
Bridgestone Tour B-XH 18 Graphite Design AD DI 105X
Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
Vokey Tour issue raw SM6   50 f  54  60 M  Modus 130S
Cameron GSS 1.5 009  Vertical stamp , tungsten sole weights

hows that for brand loyalty??

11

#42 84425

84425

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 68610
  • Joined: 11/02/2008
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Ebay ID:jurren
GolfWRX Likes : 155

Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:13 AM

View Postgrm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.
why would it not be possible? i understand that player A might get x rpm spin on his drive vs. player B getting X + 500 rp spin on his drives. But if you take a standard test situation like Iron Byron (do they still use that?) swinging driver x with x loft at x speed, and then determine that the minimum spin ought to be xyz rpm, than wouldn't that have the same effect on everyone?

I also think that setting limits on the spin could probably get the result people are looking for (i know i am!).

Or perhaps add a handicap to the spinrate: you decide to play a 2000 rpm spin ball, your score is adjusted by a factor 1.0, if you are playing a 5000 rpm ball (which will be more difficult to handle and will also have more sidespin), you can adjust your score by factor 0.94, so someone scoring 68 on a par 72 course using a low spin ball (and can easily reach all par 5's in 2), scores an adjusted 68, but someone playing a high spin ball scoring 73 on that same course (unable to reach par 5's in 2, more trouble due to high spin) will have an adjusted score of 68.6.

12

#43 jmck

jmck

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 66331
  • Joined: 09/23/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 3153

Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:14 AM

View Postgrm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.

What?  Do I really have to explain this?  "Everyone swings differently"???  "Doesn't make contact in the same way"???  What in heaven's name does any of that have to do with the rules governing golf balls?

Anyway, if you really need an explanation here it is.  You can set a minimum test value just as easily as you can set a maximum text value.  Currently there is a maximum test value set by the USGA for ball speed.  They test for that value at a 120mph club head speed.  And yet--SOMEHOW!--that maximum test value applies to all balls, and all golfers, no matter their swing speed, or how they make contact with the ball.  Currently there is no minimum test value set by the USGA for ball spin.  All you have to do is add a minimum value for ball spin to the exact same test they're currently running for ball speed.  

Swinging at 120 mph doesn't guarantee you the maximum 317 yards allowed by the current ball speed rule.  You could hit down 2* and you're around 307 instead.  OR you could hit up 2* and you're at 327 instead.  And yet, despite everyone swinging differently--SOMEHOW!--the rule exists.

If you want to have a discussion about the consequences of such a rule--both intended and unintended--I'm all ears.  But dismissing a minimum spin rule out of hand because  "Everyone swings differently" and "Doesn't make contact in the same way" is ridiculous.

13

#44 84425

84425

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 68610
  • Joined: 11/02/2008
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Ebay ID:jurren
GolfWRX Likes : 155

Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:22 AM

P.S. to everyone saying grow the rough, tighten and water the fairways, that is in most cases just as bad as (if not worse than) lengthening the holes. Most older courses were designed with hard and wide fairways in mind. You could be in the fairway but have a terrible angle at the flag. By softening the fairways you are ruining the courses designs even more so than when lengthening the holes.

14

#45 bladehunter

bladehunter

    I have a great profile! Especially from the side !

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,532 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 291449
  • Joined: 01/12/2014
  • Location:south carolina
  • Handicap:NONE
GolfWRX Likes : 18131

Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:31 AM

View Post84425, on 13 December 2017 - 08:22 AM, said:

P.S. to everyone saying grow the rough, tighten and water the fairways, that is in most cases just as bad as (if not worse than) lengthening the holes. Most older courses were designed with hard and wide fairways in mind. You could be in the fairway but have a terrible angle at the flag. By softening the fairways you are ruining the courses designs even more so than when lengthening the holes.



absolutely true... the only way hard fast fairways HELP a long player is if he hits a perfect shot ..... on anything less at the long distances it causes the ball to run off into the rough.... growing fairways only helps the long hitter.... it takes roll from the short hitter and helps the long guy control his shot... long guys arent lookig for 10 yards more roll... thats a short knockers thought process..

Edited by bladehunter, 13 December 2017 - 08:31 AM.

Callaway Rogue 9.8 Tour issue Rogue Black 80TX  playing at 43 1/4
17 M1 14.5  Tour issue Graphite Design   AD DI 8X
Bridgestone Tour B-XH 18 Graphite Design AD DI 105X
Ping i500 4-pw Modus 130X
Vokey Tour issue raw SM6   50 f  54  60 M  Modus 130S
Cameron GSS 1.5 009  Vertical stamp , tungsten sole weights

hows that for brand loyalty??

15

#46 North Texas

North Texas

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,686 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 103646
  • Joined: 02/18/2010
  • Location:North of Dallas
GolfWRX Likes : 2346

Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:55 AM

View Poststorm319, on 12 December 2017 - 11:08 PM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  

Sorry, but your suggestion would not solve this perceived "problem" nor is it a realistic limitation. Not only that, but testing every combination of club head speed, angle of attack, club face angle, and impact location on each ball submission would be impossible for the USGA/R&A to accomplish. Even if they decided on a testing benchmark, a different set of swing variables could have completely different results. If the USGA/R&A decide the rollback the ball, they will do so by reducing the maximum allowable weight in an attempt to reduce ball speed (which they did in 1931 before reverting back a year later due to public displeasure). If they move forward with a rollback, it will be 10 times the cf that the groove rollback was (which accomplished nothing at the highest levels I might add).

Do people realize that this distance argument has been going on for approximately 100 years? The initial USGA limitations of minimum diameter, maximum weight, dimple and overall symmetry originated in 1921 with an increase in minimum diameter and decrease in maximum weight in 1931 (weight decrease repealed a year later). The last limitations to initial ball velocity and the distance standard were put into place in 1976. Essentially the solid core, multilayer ball has been subject to the same limitations that the longstanding wound ball was, it was simply more efficient in every way which is why wound balls are now extinct. Since that paradigm shift (along with club head limitations during the same period), distance increases have remained stagnant.

The pro-rollback supporters are simply nostalgic for and/or attempting to protect the legacy of the "golden age" or the 60's and 70's. Hopefully the USGA/R&A will continue their course of doing nothing and avoid another unjustified rollback. Just about everything of substance related to equipment has been limited to this point so the game simply just needs to be left alone.

You could not be more wrong.

16

#47 North Texas

North Texas

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,686 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 103646
  • Joined: 02/18/2010
  • Location:North of Dallas
GolfWRX Likes : 2346

Posted 13 December 2017 - 08:58 AM

View Postbladehunter, on 13 December 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

View Postgrm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.


well.... sure.. BUT same argument can be used now to be in favor of the rollback....  no way that the current ball is equitable for all swing speeds as is....  slower you swing the easier it is to reach the magical +4 +5 aoa numbers.... spin comes wayyy down then and carry goes wayy up for any speed with the current ball and its ability to get to sub 2000 rpms... ....  very rare to see a guy swinging 120 with that type aoa... so its stacked currently to even up the fields...  fair isnt fair... or is it that current tech isnt fair ?  maybe rollback woildnt be fair either..but it wont be any more unfair thats for sure...

edit- whcih is why im still in favor of driver size rollback more so than ball....  take the head back to 360cc or less and shrink 3 wood back down too  and we wont see as many swing all out... problem solved...distance potential is still there but realistically far fewer guys acheive the 320 carries we see now ...
and for those of you who say that doesnt matter... why are you playing that huge driver then ? i can tell you why.. it hits the ball straighter and you can miss it all over and still get good distance...

For the life of me, I can't understand why more people don't get this. The solution is right in front of our eyes and my prediction is that this is what we will eventually see. If we see anything at all.

17

#48 jmck

jmck

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 66331
  • Joined: 09/23/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 3153

Posted 13 December 2017 - 09:14 AM

View Postbladehunter, on 13 December 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

View Postgrm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.


well.... sure.. BUT same argument can be used now to be in favor of the rollback....  no way that the current ball is equitable for all swing speeds as is....  slower you swing the easier it is to reach the magical +4 +5 aoa numbers.... spin comes wayyy down then and carry goes wayy up for any speed with the current ball and its ability to get to sub 2000 rpms... ....  very rare to see a guy swinging 120 with that type aoa... so its stacked currently to even up the fields...  fair isnt fair... or is it that current tech isnt fair ?  maybe rollback woildnt be fair either..but it wont be any more unfair thats for sure...

edit- whcih is why im still in favor of driver size rollback more so than ball....  take the head back to 360cc or less and shrink 3 wood back down too  and we wont see as many swing all out... problem solved...distance potential is still there but realistically far fewer guys acheive the 320 carries we see now ...
and for those of you who say that doesnt matter... why are you playing that huge driver then ? i can tell you why.. it hits the ball straighter and you can miss it all over and still get good distance...

I agree that it would've been nice if they capped driver size at 350cc or so.  I wouldn't want them to make that change now though, as 460cc is something that makes the game a lot easier for recreational golfers.  The nice thing about setting a minimum for ball spin is that it has a negligible effect on recreational golfers--heck you could even argue that it would be an overall positive for your average 15 handicapper: maybe a few more fairways hit, definitely easier to hold greens with irons, easier to chip and pitch, all while giving up little if any distance off the tee.  Couple that with adding back some of the premium on shot making and ball control that's disappeared from the pro game over the last ~15 or so years, and you have a solution to "rolling back the ball" that doesn't touch ball speed rules AND doesn't negatively effect your average 15 handicapper.

My driver combo is a GBB SZ with an old Matrix Black Tie 7M3.  Short of a first gen SLDR it's about as low spin of a combo as you can get.  Not only that, but I try to hit the thing about 3/4" high and towards the toe because it spins even less there than it does in the actual center of the face.  I'm not anti-technology, and I'm not concerned with Jack Nicklaus' legacy or any other such garbage as that.  But the pro game has absolutely changed for the worse, at least IMO.  We're heading towards a future where everyone on tour looks like DJ, and the Corey Pavins of the world have absolutely no chance.  I'm a lot closer to DJ than to Corey Pavin, but I still think that's a shame.  And aside from that, anyone who doesn't think ball control and shot making at the highest levels of the game has been de-emphasized thanks to new technology simply hasn't been around the game long enough to see the changes.  Again, at least IMO that's a shame, and a spinier ball fixes it without hurting the recreational golfers who don't care a whit about any of this.

18

#49 NRJyzr

NRJyzr

    Certified Blade Chump

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,769 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72626
  • Joined: 01/12/2009
  • Location:Minnesota, USA
  • Handicap:7
  • Ebay ID:n.r.jyzr
GolfWRX Likes : 5237

Posted 13 December 2017 - 09:14 AM

View Postbladehunter, on 13 December 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

edit- whcih is why im still in favor of driver size rollback more so than ball....  take the head back to 360cc or less and shrink 3 wood back down too  and we wont see as many swing all out... problem solved...distance potential is still there but realistically far fewer guys acheive the 320 carries we see now ...
and for those of you who say that doesnt matter... why are you playing that huge driver then ? i can tell you why.. it hits the ball straighter and you can miss it all over and still get good distance...

I've felt the driver distance spike is as much due to clubhead size as anything.  If you look at the PGA Tour average distance spectrum, there's a 5-6 yd jump when the wound balls went away, and another similar jump a year or two later.  The second one is about when all the OEMs started making their drivers over 400cc.  Generally speaking.  ;)

The bigger drivers are part of what's produced the new breed of length in the game.  When your driver is huge, you can go at it a lot harder without as much worry about a mishit.  Under 300cc, it's a bit different.  I took a 260cc 45" driver on course earlier this year.  Get a bit sloppy and the results aren't so wonderful, LOL.

I doubt it would make all THAT much difference, ultimately.  The reduced forgiveness would bring the average down a bit, but trying to legislate the spin is more than silly.  The J's Professional Weapon showed you can get some stupid length out of even wound golfballs if you put them in the right hands.  And Tour Edge's new CBX shows you can get the spin down even in a fairway wood.  Limiting the size of fairways wouldn't do all that much, either; the J's driver has as small or smaller a hitting area than most hybrids.
The Ever Changing Bag!

Driver:  Tour Edge XCG7 Beta, Fuji Motore F3 80 X, 43.5"
3w:  Cobra King LTD, Motore F1 85 X, 42.5"
2h:  TM Stage2 Tour, NV105 S
2-PW, Golden Ram Tour Grind, Dynamic S
SW:  Acer XB 58*, DGS300 tipped
Testing:  4-SW Pinhawk SL irons, DGS400, 37" (oh my!), w/Maltby 60° LW
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, 34.5", PP58 midsize grip
(Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35" -or- Mizuno TPM-2, 35" as backups)
Balls:  in no particular order...  Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV
   will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time
Shoes by True Linkswear

19

#50 NRJyzr

NRJyzr

    Certified Blade Chump

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,769 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 72626
  • Joined: 01/12/2009
  • Location:Minnesota, USA
  • Handicap:7
  • Ebay ID:n.r.jyzr
GolfWRX Likes : 5237

Posted 13 December 2017 - 09:23 AM

View Postjmck, on 13 December 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 13 December 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

View Postgrm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.


well.... sure.. BUT same argument can be used now to be in favor of the rollback....  no way that the current ball is equitable for all swing speeds as is....  slower you swing the easier it is to reach the magical +4 +5 aoa numbers.... spin comes wayyy down then and carry goes wayy up for any speed with the current ball and its ability to get to sub 2000 rpms... ....  very rare to see a guy swinging 120 with that type aoa... so its stacked currently to even up the fields...  fair isnt fair... or is it that current tech isnt fair ?  maybe rollback woildnt be fair either..but it wont be any more unfair thats for sure...

edit- whcih is why im still in favor of driver size rollback more so than ball....  take the head back to 360cc or less and shrink 3 wood back down too  and we wont see as many swing all out... problem solved...distance potential is still there but realistically far fewer guys acheive the 320 carries we see now ...
and for those of you who say that doesnt matter... why are you playing that huge driver then ? i can tell you why.. it hits the ball straighter and you can miss it all over and still get good distance...

I agree that it would've been nice if they capped driver size at 350cc or so.  I wouldn't want them to make that change now though, as 460cc is something that makes the game a lot easier for recreational golfers.  The nice thing about setting a minimum for ball spin is that it has a negligible effect on recreational golfers--heck you could even argue that it would be an overall positive for your average 15 handicapper: maybe a few more fairways hit, definitely easier to hold greens with irons, easier to chip and pitch, all while giving up little if any distance off the tee.  Couple that with adding back some of the premium on shot making and ball control that's disappeared from the pro game over the last ~15 or so years, and you have a solution to "rolling back the ball" that doesn't touch ball speed rules AND doesn't negatively effect your average 15 handicapper.

My driver combo is a GBB SZ with an old Matrix Black Tie 7M3.  Short of a first gen SLDR it's about as low spin of a combo as you can get.  Not only that, but I try to hit the thing about 3/4" high and towards the toe because it spins even less there than it does in the actual center of the face.  I'm not anti-technology, and I'm not concerned with Jack Nicklaus' legacy or any other such garbage as that.  But the pro game has absolutely changed for the worse, at least IMO.  We're heading towards a future where everyone on tour looks like DJ, and the Corey Pavins of the world have absolutely no chance.  I'm a lot closer to DJ than to Corey Pavin, but I still think that's a shame.  And aside from that, anyone who doesn't think ball control and shot making at the highest levels of the game has been de-emphasized thanks to new technology simply hasn't been around the game long enough to see the changes.  Again, at least IMO that's a shame, and a spinier ball fixes it without hurting the recreational golfers who don't care a whit about any of this.


I'm sorry dude, but there's nothing nice about setting a minimum limit on ball spin.  It's just screams "jealousy of long hitters and the need to reign them in."

And the wound balls replaced by the "new breed" weren't as super spinny as you seem to want to see.  Ball tests done at the time showed that, while the wound balls spun more, they didn't do so at crazy levels.  They weren't even that much shorter; the avg distance change from wound to solid core was only about 5.5 yds.

The curvature, or lack thereof, of the modern golfball isn't due to spin.  It's aerodynamics (dimple patterns).  Remember when the HX balls first showed on the scene?  The Senior Tour guys hated them, they couldn't get them to move as much as they wanted.  Hence balls like the CTU30.

Are you going to want to legislate aerodynamics, also?

Edited by NRJyzr, 13 December 2017 - 09:27 AM.

The Ever Changing Bag!

Driver:  Tour Edge XCG7 Beta, Fuji Motore F3 80 X, 43.5"
3w:  Cobra King LTD, Motore F1 85 X, 42.5"
2h:  TM Stage2 Tour, NV105 S
2-PW, Golden Ram Tour Grind, Dynamic S
SW:  Acer XB 58*, DGS300 tipped
Testing:  4-SW Pinhawk SL irons, DGS400, 37" (oh my!), w/Maltby 60° LW
Putter:  Snake Eyes Viper Tour Sv1, 34.5", PP58 midsize grip
(Cleveland Huntington Beach #1 35" -or- Mizuno TPM-2, 35" as backups)
Balls:  in no particular order...  Wilson Staff FG Tour, Duo Urethane, or 50 Elite, Srixon ZStar/ZStar XV
   will trot out Maxfli HT-100 or Elite 90 from time to time
Shoes by True Linkswear

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 jmck

jmck

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 66331
  • Joined: 09/23/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 3153

Posted 13 December 2017 - 09:51 AM

View PostNRJyzr, on 13 December 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 13 December 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 13 December 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

View Postgrm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.


well.... sure.. BUT same argument can be used now to be in favor of the rollback....  no way that the current ball is equitable for all swing speeds as is....  slower you swing the easier it is to reach the magical +4 +5 aoa numbers.... spin comes wayyy down then and carry goes wayy up for any speed with the current ball and its ability to get to sub 2000 rpms... ....  very rare to see a guy swinging 120 with that type aoa... so its stacked currently to even up the fields...  fair isnt fair... or is it that current tech isnt fair ?  maybe rollback woildnt be fair either..but it wont be any more unfair thats for sure...

edit- whcih is why im still in favor of driver size rollback more so than ball....  take the head back to 360cc or less and shrink 3 wood back down too  and we wont see as many swing all out... problem solved...distance potential is still there but realistically far fewer guys acheive the 320 carries we see now ...
and for those of you who say that doesnt matter... why are you playing that huge driver then ? i can tell you why.. it hits the ball straighter and you can miss it all over and still get good distance...

I agree that it would've been nice if they capped driver size at 350cc or so.  I wouldn't want them to make that change now though, as 460cc is something that makes the game a lot easier for recreational golfers.  The nice thing about setting a minimum for ball spin is that it has a negligible effect on recreational golfers--heck you could even argue that it would be an overall positive for your average 15 handicapper: maybe a few more fairways hit, definitely easier to hold greens with irons, easier to chip and pitch, all while giving up little if any distance off the tee.  Couple that with adding back some of the premium on shot making and ball control that's disappeared from the pro game over the last ~15 or so years, and you have a solution to "rolling back the ball" that doesn't touch ball speed rules AND doesn't negatively effect your average 15 handicapper.

My driver combo is a GBB SZ with an old Matrix Black Tie 7M3.  Short of a first gen SLDR it's about as low spin of a combo as you can get.  Not only that, but I try to hit the thing about 3/4" high and towards the toe because it spins even less there than it does in the actual center of the face.  I'm not anti-technology, and I'm not concerned with Jack Nicklaus' legacy or any other such garbage as that.  But the pro game has absolutely changed for the worse, at least IMO.  We're heading towards a future where everyone on tour looks like DJ, and the Corey Pavins of the world have absolutely no chance.  I'm a lot closer to DJ than to Corey Pavin, but I still think that's a shame.  And aside from that, anyone who doesn't think ball control and shot making at the highest levels of the game has been de-emphasized thanks to new technology simply hasn't been around the game long enough to see the changes.  Again, at least IMO that's a shame, and a spinier ball fixes it without hurting the recreational golfers who don't care a whit about any of this.


I'm sorry dude, but there's nothing nice about setting a minimum limit on ball spin.  It's just screams "jealousy of long hitters and the need to reign them in."

And the wound balls replaced by the "new breed" weren't as super spinny as you seem to want to see.  Ball tests done at the time showed that, while the wound balls spun more, they didn't do so at crazy levels.  They weren't even that much shorter; the avg distance change from wound to solid core was only about 5.5 yds.

The curvature, or lack thereof, of the modern golfball isn't due to spin.  It's aerodynamics and dimple patterns.  Remember when the HX balls first showed on the scene?  The Senior Tour guys hated them, they couldn't get them to move as much as they wanted.  Hence balls like the CTU30.

Are you going to want to legislate aerodynamics, also?

Well, yeah, let's legislate aerodynamics.  Aerodynamics and spin are closely related.  Saying "The curvature, or lack thereof, of the modern golfball isn't due to spin.  It's aerodynamics and dimple patterns" makes no sense.  Spin/curvature comes from aerodynamics, at least as much as it comes from materials/construction.  If you don't like the sound of putting minimum spin number on balls, the same result can be achieved by establishing a minimum depth for dimples.  Modern dimples are SUPER shallow compared to what was standard in the balata days.

As for spin rates, the old balls added ~750-1250 rpms on a driver, depending on s/s.  Again, I think it's totally reasonable to legislate ball spin, just like we currently do with ball size, weight, and speed.  Add 1000 rpms back to the ball and the pros have to think twice before mindlessly bashing driver...BUT your average 15 handicapper doesn't notice that extra 1000 rpms at all.

I'm not "jealous" of long hitters.  I just think that when technology allows this shot to go 305 yards and finish a foot off the fairway it's time to do something.  Limiting the cc of clubs is one way to approach it, but I think you could get similar results by, oh I don't know, legislating ball aerodynamics for example, without hurting recreational golfers one bit.

21

#52 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,166 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:2.6
GolfWRX Likes : 6848

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:02 AM

View PostNorth Texas, on 13 December 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

View Postbladehunter, on 13 December 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

View Postgrm24, on 13 December 2017 - 01:26 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 11 December 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Forget ball speed.  Set a minimum for ball spin and you're done.  
Please explain how that can be accomplished equally for all. Especially since everyone swings different, at different speeds and does not make contact in the same way, or on the sweet spot at all times. Some new form of physics? It's not so easy as simply setting some random standard that will impact everyone the same. It can't be done. There isn't some magic formula the USGA/R&A can implement that will be equitable across the board for all swing speeds to reduce distance. That whole law of unintended consequences tends to complicate things as it pertains to the real world. Golf included.


well.... sure.. BUT same argument can be used now to be in favor of the rollback....  no way that the current ball is equitable for all swing speeds as is....  slower you swing the easier it is to reach the magical +4 +5 aoa numbers.... spin comes wayyy down then and carry goes wayy up for any speed with the current ball and its ability to get to sub 2000 rpms... ....  very rare to see a guy swinging 120 with that type aoa... so its stacked currently to even up the fields...  fair isnt fair... or is it that current tech isnt fair ?  maybe rollback woildnt be fair either..but it wont be any more unfair thats for sure...

edit- whcih is why im still in favor of driver size rollback more so than ball....  take the head back to 360cc or less and shrink 3 wood back down too  and we wont see as many swing all out... problem solved...distance potential is still there but realistically far fewer guys acheive the 320 carries we see now ...
and for those of you who say that doesnt matter... why are you playing that huge driver then ? i can tell you why.. it hits the ball straighter and you can miss it all over and still get good distance...

For the life of me, I can't understand why more people don't get this. The solution is right in front of our eyes and my prediction is that this is what we will eventually see. If we see anything at all.
C'mon now.  The Titleis 975J was introduced in 2001 with just 312cc. Even less than some are suggesting. Did players swing more gently then?  

For that matter persimmon they swung slower? Miller looked just like Thomas. Love the tip though-he calls this quiet feet lol.


TM M3 440 10* Graphite Design AD IZ 6x
TM M1 3w 14*  Graphite Design BB7s
TM M2  5w 18* Fujikura Atmos TS Blue 8S or Srixon U65 18° Atmos Red 7s
Adams A12 UST Silver S 21°
Srixon Z765 5-AW Nippon Pro Modus3 125S
Titleist Vokey 54*F  58*S
Toulon Garage Rochester/ Toulon Rochester

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

22

#53 84425

84425

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 68610
  • Joined: 11/02/2008
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  • Ebay ID:jurren
GolfWRX Likes : 155

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:03 AM

Not sure how much of the roll back the ball arguments are in favor of nostalgia. I can only speak for myself when i say that i am only interested in having a ball that has similar ccharacteristics as the old wound balls. I don't care what anyone else plays or what the pro's play (allthough i do realise that the current situation will make it very unlikely that anyone will ever produce a ball again that i am looking for, where that possibility is a bit bigger if they do "roll back" the ball).

If you or anyone else rather plays a ball that is difficult to manouver and generates long drives, be my guest (i played modern equipment once about 10 years ago. played my best round ever (-2), but not for a moment felt i was playing well (or bad for that matter). Decided then and there that i enjoyed the old golf i was used to from the late 80ies/mid 90ies when i grew up. Let me struggle off the tee, but the reward when hitting a drive 270 yards with a persimmon driver will feel so much more sweet than hitting a 460cc driver 320 + yards. But maybe i am just a closet sado masochist ;-)

I do think however, that there are multiple reasons why we as golfers (as a group) should applaud attempts to reduce the length of drives that players hit nowadays. Courses that are built nowadays are longer than 20-30 years ago. Golf becomes more expensive because of that. Rounds take longer. Etcetera etcetra. And I still have not really seen any argument against it. I would even argue that a roll back of the ball hardly impacts 95% of all amateurs as they don't have the swingspeed/skill to take advantage of the modern balls characteristics. The only people that benefit from it are the current tour players who's game depends in large part on their drives. Take that bit of extra yardage out and those will be replaced by better ballstrikers/scramblers/putters. From the little golf i watch on tv, i get bored off my t****. All i see is driver wedge. If i wanted to see that i could visit a driving range. in the past i could relate to some moments on tour: i was also in the rough, like Seve. I also made 4-putts, like Seve. I occasionally hit a 5 iron into a par 4 green, just like Seve. Nowadays, i see Rory hitting 340 yard drives (i never do that), i hit 4, 5 and 6 irons into greens, not 60* wedges. I putt on greens with stimp 8 (and still hit it 5 feet past the hole). I can't relate to these guys. No wait, that's not true: i also miss greens hitting wedges (can't believe how often i see pro's miss greens with short irons: my wedge would be in a tree if i hit shots that bad...)

23

#54 jmck

jmck

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 66331
  • Joined: 09/23/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 3153

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:16 AM

View PostShilgy, on 13 December 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

View PostNorth Texas, on 13 December 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

For the life of me, I can't understand why more people don't get this. The solution is right in front of our eyes and my prediction is that this is what we will eventually see. If we see anything at all.
C'mon now.  The Titleis 975J was introduced in 2001 with just 312cc. Even less than some are suggesting. Did players swing more gently then?  

For that matter persimmon they swung slower? Miller looked just like Thomas. Love the tip though-he calls this quiet feet lol.



The % of pros swinging all out isn't the issue here.  It's the lack of penalty for missing when you're swinging all out.  I mean just look at that DJ link.  That's a massive duck hook--head high and 50 yards sideways--with persimmon.  It's a slightly less massive duck hook with a 975J but it's still in real trouble.  With the modern equipment there is no penalty at all for that quality of contact.

24

#55 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,861 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6959

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:22 AM

View Postjmck, on 13 December 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

View PostShilgy, on 13 December 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

View PostNorth Texas, on 13 December 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

For the life of me, I can't understand why more people don't get this. The solution is right in front of our eyes and my prediction is that this is what we will eventually see. If we see anything at all.
C'mon now.  The Titleis 975J was introduced in 2001 with just 312cc. Even less than some are suggesting. Did players swing more gently then?  

For that matter persimmon they swung slower? Miller looked just like Thomas. Love the tip though-he calls this quiet feet lol.



The % of pros swinging all out isn't the issue here.  It's the lack of penalty for missing when you're swinging all out.  I mean just look at that DJ link.  That's a massive duck hook--head high and 50 yards sideways--with persimmon.  It's a slightly less massive duck hook with a 975J but it's still in real trouble.  With the modern equipment there is no penalty at all for that quality of contact.

Right. Which is why 99.9% of people who play golf like the new equipment better.

Itís amazing how you guys seem to keep proving over and over what everybody knows. The new balls and drivers work better than the old stuff. The real mystery is why you think thatís a compelling argument for legislating the new, better equipment out of the game.

Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.

25

#56 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,166 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:2.6
GolfWRX Likes : 6848

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:32 AM

View Postjmck, on 13 December 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:


The % of pros swinging all out isn't the issue here.  It's the lack of penalty for missing when you're swinging all out.  I mean just look at that DJ link.  That's a massive duck hook--head high and 50 yards sideways--with persimmon.  It's a slightly less massive duck hook with a 975J but it's still in real trouble.  With the modern equipment there is no penalty at all for that quality of contact.
  But which is it? You just said there is no penalty for swinging like that with modern equipment AND supplied a link to a bad swing getting severely penalized.  Unless you think he got away with a severely closed face somehow with the new gear? If so I need one of those.  :)  

  Yes I was younger but for me the old gear was a lot straighter. Persimmon was like hitting a modern 3 wood-but the modern 3 wood is smaller.  43" with a 150-180cc 3 wood and about 190cc for a 50's persimmon.  https://www.louisvillegolf.com/product/classic-50s-persimmon-drivers/

  Does anyone have an issue swinging all out at three wood?
TM M3 440 10* Graphite Design AD IZ 6x
TM M1 3w 14*  Graphite Design BB7s
TM M2  5w 18* Fujikura Atmos TS Blue 8S or Srixon U65 18° Atmos Red 7s
Adams A12 UST Silver S 21°
Srixon Z765 5-AW Nippon Pro Modus3 125S
Titleist Vokey 54*F  58*S
Toulon Garage Rochester/ Toulon Rochester

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

26

#57 jmck

jmck

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 66331
  • Joined: 09/23/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 3153

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:35 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 13 December 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 13 December 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

View PostShilgy, on 13 December 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

View PostNorth Texas, on 13 December 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

For the life of me, I can't understand why more people don't get this. The solution is right in front of our eyes and my prediction is that this is what we will eventually see. If we see anything at all.
C'mon now.  The Titleis 975J was introduced in 2001 with just 312cc. Even less than some are suggesting. Did players swing more gently then?  

For that matter persimmon they swung slower? Miller looked just like Thomas. Love the tip though-he calls this quiet feet lol.



The % of pros swinging all out isn't the issue here.  It's the lack of penalty for missing when you're swinging all out.  I mean just look at that DJ link.  That's a massive duck hook--head high and 50 yards sideways--with persimmon.  It's a slightly less massive duck hook with a 975J but it's still in real trouble.  With the modern equipment there is no penalty at all for that quality of contact.

Right. Which is why 99.9% of people who play golf like the new equipment better.

It's amazing how you guys seem to keep proving over and over what everybody knows. The new balls and drivers work better than the old stuff. The real mystery is why you think that's a compelling argument for legislating the new, better equipment out of the game.

Hey!  I just had a great idea!  Let's make the hole 12" wide!  Unlimited mulligans for everyone too!  After all we have the technology to make 12" holes, and unlimited mulligans is an easy rule tweak.  Rule 57-b-2 "hit until you're happy."  Let's make this silly game as easy as possible!  Personally I won't be satisfied until 50 under par on 8500 yard courses wins every week.

Seriously though, what is it about an .830 COR that you find acceptable?  Or a ball that maxes out at 317 yards per 120mph of clubhead speed?  Surely those rules are also "legislating the new, better equipment out of the game."

27

#58 jmck

jmck

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,989 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 66331
  • Joined: 09/23/2008
GolfWRX Likes : 3153

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:37 AM

View PostShilgy, on 13 December 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

View Postjmck, on 13 December 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

The % of pros swinging all out isn't the issue here.  It's the lack of penalty for missing when you're swinging all out.  I mean just look at that DJ link.  That's a massive duck hook--head high and 50 yards sideways--with persimmon.  It's a slightly less massive duck hook with a 975J but it's still in real trouble.  With the modern equipment there is no penalty at all for that quality of contact.
  But which is it? You just said there is no penalty for swinging like that with modern equipment AND supplied a link to a bad swing getting severely penalized.  Unless you think he got away with a severely closed face somehow with the new gear? If so I need one of those.  :)  

  Yes I was younger but for me the old gear was a lot straighter. Persimmon was like hitting a modern 3 wood-but the modern 3 wood is smaller.  43" with a 150-180cc 3 wood and about 190cc for a 50's persimmon.  https://www.louisvillegolf.com/product/classic-50s-persimmon-drivers/

  Does anyone have an issue swinging all out at three wood?

What?  That DJ swing went 305 yards and finished a foot off the fairway.  Maybe you and I have different definitions of "severely penalized."?

28

#59 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,861 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6959

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:40 AM

I like the current numbers just fine. If you don't, then that's your preference. Keep whining about it if you like.

Just don't try to arguing in favor of your Luddite desires by restating the obvious superiority of the modern equipment to antiques. That's not a sensible argument. At least have the conviction to say right up front, "I hate the fact that equipment improved and want someone to make us all go back to using the worse-performing equipment I used at age 14. Nothing earlier, nothing later. Just the stuff I grew up playing".

Unless of course you want them to legislate hickory and gutta percha while they're at it...
Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.

29

#60 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,861 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6959

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:48 AM

I'll state my convictions, for clarity.

I like every single thing about modern golf equipment better than what I learned to play with 25 years ago. I like playing a ProV1x far, far better than a Dunlop DDH II. I love the ability to stop a ball on a firm green. I like the durability. I like the way it sounds when the putter hits it. I like actually seeing the difference between a well-struck pitch shot and a scruffy one.

Swinging my Cobra driver with the 60g shaft is so much more fun and less tiring than the steel-shafted laminated maple 3-wood I used for my first year or two in the game. I can hit the ball farther and with more consistent directional control and I can swing as hard as I like at it without worrying about whiffing.

I like the modern Bermuda hybrids on our putting greens far, far better than the grainy, slow Common Bermuda ones I learned on. I like seeing a 20-foot putt roll smoothly with nary a bobble. I like knowing if I make a good stroke on a 5-footer the ball is going to go in rather than take some squirrelly detour halfway to the hole.

I like my laser rangefinder. I can't remember the last time I paced around looking for a sprinkler head, only to find it doesn't have a yardage on it for some reason. Or hitting a 6-iron on a Par 3 where the sign right by where I'm standing says "#6 Par 3 145 Yards" only to fly the green by 20 yards because it's really only a 120-yard hole.

I could go on and on but I'll just stop there and say I have no desire to go back to any part of the game that we playing in the 1990's. Much less to some earlier Elysian era where men were men and golf clubs were made of wood.

Everything has its drawbacks, as the man said when his mother-in-law died, and they came down upon him for the funeral expenses.

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



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors