551 replies to this topic

[Uhit]

tnord, on 02 January 2018 - 02:07 PM, said:

you are absolutely correct that some could gain distance by reducing spin, but i do not believe that to be the case for the majority.  i could be wrong.

sidespin != backspin

backspin actually makes the ball go straighter.

do people with under a 10hdcp not get to enjoy the game of golf too? or is it only for people that can't break 90?

A lot of amateurs don't de-loft the club at impact, or they even scoop through impact - both is adding spin.

A spinny ball, doesn't know if the player wanted pure backspin with a perfect vertical spin axis, or also side spin, because of a tilted spin axis.

Guess what, a amateur has bigger problems to control the spin axis, than a pro...
...thus the amateur will get more punished by a more spinning ball, than the pro.

btw

there are low handicappers, who hit it short, and high handicappers who hit it a long way...

...because the short game is also important.

Edited by Uhit, 02 January 2018 - 02:20 PM.

[Viewing As Guest]

[tnord]

i concede your point regarding spin axis, but not that "scooping" adds spin.

can we all think about shots beyond just the driver?

[Uhit]

tnord, on 02 January 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

i concede your point regarding spin axis, but not that "scooping" adds spin.

can we all think about shots beyond just the driver?

Maybe it is not the appropriate word for that strike technique...

...but if you let the club head overtake your hands through impact, and let the club head slide through the ball position, you are adding a lot of loft, which is adding spin.

If you have ever played with a 64 degree wedge, you know, that you can literally slide through and under the ball, with next to no forward moving of the ball - similar to a flop shot.

[Shilgy]

Something struck me as odd the other day that reminded me of this thread. There has been so much posted about how  courses “have to” lengthen holes because the modern players hit it too far. And yet baseball celebrates with awe how far guys like Judge and Stanton hit the ball and how many home runs they hit.

I have not seen any reports of stadiums thinking they “must” move back the fences to stop this onslaught. Now that they are on the same team maybe some team will just move back the fences when the Yankees are in town?

[goph3r]

Kudos to Titleist on making a biased powerpoint. So basically, all thats changed is the golfer's fitness level and therefore we should not allow people to workout anymore and ban protein from professional player diets.

[goph3r]

Shilgy, on 07 January 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:

Something struck me as odd the other day that reminded me of this thread. There has been so much posted about how  courses “have to” lengthen holes because the modern players hit it too far. And yet baseball celebrates with awe how far guys like Judge and Stanton hit the ball and how many home runs they hit.

I have not seen any reports of stadiums thinking they “must” move back the fences to stop this onslaught. Now that they are on the same team maybe some team will just move back the fences when the Yankees are in town?

You're right, they dont move fences, they just make sure they cant use metal bats at professional level. Same thing as limiting golf equipment...

[new2g0lf]

Shilgy, on 07 January 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:

Something struck me as odd the other day that reminded me of this thread. There has been so much posted about how  courses “have to” lengthen holes because the modern players hit it too far. And yet baseball celebrates with awe how far guys like Judge and Stanton hit the ball and how many home runs they hit.

I have not seen any reports of stadiums thinking they “must” move back the fences to stop this onslaught. Now that they are on the same team maybe some team will just move back the fences when the Yankees are in town?

A number of fields have actually moved their fences in to increase HR's for the home team.  Baseball field dimensions are based on the type of baseball the home team hopes to play.  Citi Field was built as a pitchers field initially, but the lack of HR's made winning and attracting power hitters difficult so they moved in the fences.  Back in the day, the Yankees built their stadium with a short right field fence for Babe Ruth.  

The Sentry course was set up for long hitters.  DJ hit a drive 430 yards but at least 80 yards was rollout down the hill.

[Shilgy]

goph3r, on 08 January 2018 - 12:04 AM, said:

Shilgy, on 07 January 2018 - 11:16 PM, said:

Something struck me as odd the other day that reminded me of this thread. There has been so much posted about how  courses "have to" lengthen holes because the modern players hit it too far. And yet baseball celebrates with awe how far guys like Judge and Stanton hit the ball and how many home runs they hit.

I have not seen any reports of stadiums thinking they "must" move back the fences to stop this onslaught. Now that they are on the same team maybe some team will just move back the fences when the Yankees are in town?

You're right, they dont move fences, they just make sure they cant use metal bats at professional level. Same thing as limiting golf equipment...

They are hitting the ball 450+ feet with wood. Longer than ever before on a consistent basis.  So the metal bat example is invalid.  The metal bat ban  is more of a safety issue for pitchers and infielders.

[Roadking2003]

goph3r, on 08 January 2018 - 12:00 AM, said:

Kudos to Titleist on making a biased powerpoint. So basically, all thats changed is the golfer's fitness level and therefore we should not allow people to workout anymore and ban protein from professional player diets.

Strange post.  Did you read the report?   They showed how several other factors have changed.

[goph3r]

Roadking2003, on 08 January 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

goph3r, on 08 January 2018 - 12:00 AM, said:

Kudos to Titleist on making a biased powerpoint. So basically, all thats changed is the golfer's fitness level and therefore we should not allow people to workout anymore and ban protein from professional player diets.

Strange post.  Did you read the report?   They showed how several other factors have changed.

Yep. Made sure to read it before posting anything. There arent very many factors. Golfer, club, ball, course. Course lengthening meant a race for more distance and that has been acheived and now everyone complains that the "driver" and "ball" are too long which is hogwash to limit the argument to just the driver when those same long drivers can use a 2 iron to hit 250yd+ shots. Jamie sadlowski may be an exception but he drives a 2 iron further than most tour player's can drive. So scaling back tour woods really isnt an option. Elite fitness is only going to get better. Making courses longer isn't an option, although they could redesign course hazards differently to make it more difficult to do the bomb it and recover strategy as well as they could tighten the out of bounds borders as a deterent from bombing it. Then theres the ball.

[Viewing As Guest]

[kenstl]

The only thing missing from this Titleist rant is for it to be presented by Michael Breed!

[MadGolfer76]

Everyone should read "How to Lie with Statistics" at least once in their lives.

Honestly, if he wanted to say the ball isn't the problem, he could do an Iron Byron test between old and new. I'm sure there is a reason he didn't.

[anth]

Can someone point me to the video where Mark Crossfield pulls apart this data?  I need him to tell me to be critical of some of these ambit claims, otherwise I just might believe everything I’m being told by Titleist.

[Uhit]

MadGolfer76, on 12 January 2018 - 01:00 AM, said:

Everyone should read "How to Lie with Statistics" at least once in their lives.

Honestly, if he wanted to say the ball isn't the problem, he could do an Iron Byron test between old and new. I'm sure there is a reason he didn't.

You mean the correlation between the declining amount of public phone cells, and the increase of the average live expectancy within the last 20 years?

Yes, (meanwhile) I guess, that Davis may address this issue...

Edited by Uhit, 12 January 2018 - 01:56 AM.

[Holy Moses]

Jack's comments at PGA National were more of the same. "It's the ball's fault and I've been saying that since the 1970s..." Jack has made golf balls and courses for decades. He notes that people complain at how long it takes to play a round of golf. Yet he makes some of the longest and most difficult courses around and tried to make a ball just as long as anything else out there. Why didn't Jack take the lead and take some of his own medicine? Why is he waiting for the USGA and the R&A to force him to make the changes he thinks are necessary? Jack hasn't even made one course where he could even try these kinds of ideas.

On the other hand, this study misses some of the reasons why distance might not be good for the game of golf. What about the time it takes to play a round these days? The Titleist study never mentioned that. What about the increased maintenance costs that longer courses generate? Titleist never mentioned that. Today Jack said that only Titleist is against rolling the ball back (Bridgestone has said they are for it, but we have yet to hear from Callaway, Srixon, and TaylorMade). And I can understand why. If you roll the ball back, then all of the OEMs have to make and market a ball that the masses will have to play and test. And Titleist's (already decreasing) stranglehold could be broken.

[Uhit]

Holy Moses, on 21 February 2018 - 09:44 PM, said:

Jack's comments at PGA National were more of the same. "It's the ball's fault and I've been saying that since the 1970s..." Jack has made golf balls and courses for decades. He notes that people complain at how long it takes to play a round of golf. Yet he makes some of the longest and most difficult courses around and tried to make a ball just as long as anything else out there. Why didn't Jack take the lead and take some of his own medicine? Why is he waiting for the USGA and the R&A to force him to make the changes he thinks are necessary? Jack hasn't even made one course where he could even try these kinds of ideas.

On the other hand, this study misses some of the reasons why distance might not be good for the game of golf. What about the time it takes to play a round these days? The Titleist study never mentioned that. What about the increased maintenance costs that longer courses generate? Titleist never mentioned that. Today Jack said that only Titleist is against rolling the ball back (Bridgestone has said they are for it, but we have yet to hear from Callaway, Srixon, and TaylorMade). And I can understand why. If you roll the ball back, then all of the OEMs have to make and market a ball that the masses will have to play and test. And Titleist's (already decreasing) stranglehold could be broken.

J.B. Holmes, J. Day, J. Nicklaus, etc., and every other slow player imitating them, are responsible for longer rounds of golf,

because you can play the very same course, with the very same length, in 4 hours, or 6 hours - solely depending on the people you play with, or the people in front of you.


This is completely independent from the balls they use.

-

Someone already pointed to the (fun-) fact, that one can run a mile within the time Holmes took for one shot!

...I can play a whole par 3 in that time.


How long do you need, to walk (additional) 500 yards?

...probably not longer than you are currently allowed to search for one ball.

Edited by Uhit, 21 February 2018 - 10:58 PM.

[gvogel]

Jack says the modern ball goes too far.  Tiger says the modern ball goes too far.  Louis Oosthuizen says the modern ball goes too far.  MIke Davis has come to that conclusion, and now Martin Slumbers is on the same side of that fence.

These are guys at the highest levels of the game, and they have a lot more say than a bunch of us rambling folks on the internet.  I happen to think that we have reached a point where there might be a change to the ball - and maybe to the COR of the drivers and fairway woods.

[North Butte]

Grumpy old guy #1 complains about the modern ball.

Grumpy old guy #2 complains about the modern ball.

Grumpy young guy complains about the modern ball.

And Mike Davis WHO WORKS FOR THE ORGANIZATION WITH 100% CONTROL OVER THE DISTANCE OF THE BALL complains about the modern golf ball making it tough for him to play Mr. Wizard doing course setups for his employer's events.

Yep, that convinces me I need a shorter ball. Those guys are really speaking for mainstream golfer, right there.

[Uhit]

gvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 08:57 AM, said:

Jack says the modern ball goes too far.  Tiger says the modern ball goes too far.  Louis Oosthuizen says the modern ball goes too far.  MIke Davis has come to that conclusion, and now Martin Slumbers is on the same side of that fence.

These are guys at the highest levels of the game, and they have a lot more say than a bunch of us rambling folks on the internet.  I happen to think that we have reached a point where there might be a change to the ball - and maybe to the COR of the drivers and fairway woods.

Great idea, lets forget the facts, common sense, and our brain for a minute,
and believe everything the leader(s) say(s)...

...even Abraham Lincoln was aware, that:

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

[North Butte]

Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.

In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?

So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.

[Viewing As Guest]

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

[trackcoach13]

Very disappointed in Jack and what he is suggesting. A few of my golf buddies are in their 70's and still enjoy the game like they did 20 years ago. One of them texted me and said the ball/equipment allows him to still play 6000-6200 yards even at 76 years old. Changing that would make it more difficult on our seniors. To me Jack sounds like this guy:

[gvogel]

North Butte, on 22 February 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.

In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?

So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.

What's the big deal?  So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference.  It's golf.  If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.

The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game.  In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013.  Unarguable.

[gvogel]

North Butte, on 22 February 2018 - 09:00 AM, said:

Grumpy old guy #1 complains about the modern ball.

Grumpy old guy #2 complains about the modern ball.

Grumpy young guy complains about the modern ball.

And Mike Davis WHO WORKS FOR THE ORGANIZATION WITH 100% CONTROL OVER THE DISTANCE OF THE BALL complains about the modern golf ball making it tough for him to play Mr. Wizard doing course setups for his employer's events.

Yep, that convinces me I need a shorter ball. Those guys are really speaking for mainstream golfer, right there.

By the way, grumpy old guy #2 is currently at the top of the leader board at the Honda.  Where he should be.

[North Butte]

gvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

North Butte, on 22 February 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.

In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?

So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.

What's the big deal?  So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference.  It's golf.  If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.

The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game.  In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013.  Unarguable.

If they want to make any material difference in how the game is played by Dustin Johnson, they are not talking about a 2-3% rolback. It would have to be 20-30% to make DJ hit the same clubs into the same holes at the same length as Jack did in his prime. And I'm not sure a 30% rollback would actually do that.

So don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, please. They are not talking about a tweak to the ball that makes my 210-yard drives go 205.

And yes, the game has changed since the early 90's. The equipment and balls got better in every way. I like better.

Edited by North Butte, 22 February 2018 - 09:48 AM.

[Uhit]

gvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

North Butte, on 22 February 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.

In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?

So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.

What's the big deal?  So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference.  It's golf.  If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.

The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game.  In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013.  Unarguable.

...well, if you unarguable deny the distance report of the USGA itself, and the fact, that distances haven't changed since more than a decade, because of the ball, and the equipment regulation...

...and you ignore, that the fairways became faster, and that the athletes have more sophisticated training programs etc...

...then yes...

...a truly unarguable point.

-

Maybe you should consider, that the agronomy with the advent of the lown-mowers has changed the game more, within a 20 year time span, than everything else...

Edited by Uhit, 22 February 2018 - 09:59 AM.

[North Butte]

Uhit, on 22 February 2018 - 09:49 AM, said:

gvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

North Butte, on 22 February 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.

In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?

So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.

What's the big deal?  So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference.  It's golf.  If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.

The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game.  In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013.  Unarguable.

...well, if you unarguable deny the distance report of the USGA itself, and the fact, that distances haven't changed since more than a decade, because of the ball, and the equipment regulation...

...and you ignore, that the fairways became faster, and that the athletes have more sophisticated training programs etc...

...then yes...

...a truly unarguable point.

He doesn't care about the past 15 years. He hated the ProV1 and Titanium driver when they first appeared, he thinks they should never been allowed in the first place, he wants to go back in time to the late 1990's and correct this historic injustice that has demonstrably ruined the game.

This isn't about what's happening now or going forward. This is about re-litigating a decision that was made nearly 20 years ago.

[gvogel]

North Butte, on 22 February 2018 - 09:47 AM, said:

gvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

North Butte, on 22 February 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Here's the thing. When I go play golf tomorrow, it will not be on a Mike Davis 8,000 yard setup. It will be on my outdated small town country club that was built the same year I was born and has not been changed one iota since the ProV1 was invented.

In all these "ball goes too far [sic]" threads, I still have not seen one single advantage it would offer me and the guys I play with if tomorrow we had to use a ball that flies 20-30% shorter than today's ball. We're going to be playing the same course, under the same conditions, with the same (poor) golf swings. The ball would literally just fall out of the air sooner than it does now. Where is the benefit?

So I figure the Nicklaus/Davis perspective must offer *some* benefit to players in the top echelon (1%? 5%?) of players. But they are going to have a real tough time expecting the 95 or 99 percent of us who aren't at that level to simply accept a crappy performing ball so that the elites can somehow enjoy their rounds more. But it's much of a muchness with our current cultural moment so I can't say I'm surprised.

What's the big deal?  So the game becomes a little bit harder - although for you it will probably be a 5 yard difference.  It's golf.  If you want an easier game, try lawn darts.

The unarguable point is that since that course that you play was laid out, equipment has changed quite a bit for the game.  In fact, in no other time period of the game, not even with the advent of the steel shaft or the wound ball, has the game changed as much in a 20 year period as it has from 1993 to 2013.  Unarguable.

If they want to make any material difference in how the game is played by Dustin Johnson, they are not talking about a 2-3% rolback. It would have to be 20-30% to make DJ hit the same clubs into the same holes at the same length as Jack did in his prime. And I'm not sure a 30% rollback would actually do that.

So don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, please. They are not talking about a tweak to the ball that makes my 210-yard drives go 205.

And yes, the game has changed since the early 90's. The equipment and balls got better in every way. I like better.

I would never pee on your leg.

I am guessing that the USGA/R&A will come out with two, or possibly 3 ball specifications.  The different specifications would apply to different course lengths for elite players.  As Mike Davis mentioned last summer, an elite player could play Myopia Hunt Club with ball spec #2 or #3, and make that shorter course a challenge again.  That happens to be Jack's approach as well.

That approach would be for elite players, and would not change the game for you or me.  There is an old course that I play from time to time with hickories; I would have the option of using ball spec #2 or #3 on that course.  But not on the course that measures 6400 where I play in the Thursday league.

[North Butte]

That is impossibly complicated and bloody-minded...so I guess I wouldn't at all put it past the USGA, seems right in their wheelhouse.

[cxx]

Most of the damage has already been done.  The ball goes further, courses built from the 90's on are much bigger and more difficult than their predecessors. All the courses wanted bragging rights over the longest and hardest test of golf. During this same period, maintenance got more expensive and green fee's went up.  The popping of the real estate bubble took all the air out of the balloon.

I don't think changing the ball will fix anything at this point.

[North Butte]

courses built in the 90's could not possibly been in response to ProV1 which did not exist

they were built in response to real estate bubble money

[Viewing As Guest]

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