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.

* * * * * 3 votes

Titleist golf ball study; Finally, some facts added to the debate


551 replies to this topic

#451 Uhit

Uhit

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 270

Posted 02 January 2018 - 02:19 PM

View Posttnord, 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.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#452 tnord

tnord

    Boycotting All trump Properties

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,208 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 129799
  • Joined: 05/30/2011
  • Location:Hutchinson KS
  • Handicap:+0.2
GolfWRX Likes : 618

Posted 02 January 2018 - 02:22 PM

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

can we all think about shots beyond just the driver?
TaylorMade 2017 M1 440 Speeder Evolution 757x
Titleist 917F3 13.5 Fuji Speeder Pro TS 84X
Mizuno MP4 3-P X100
SM7 50F 54M 58M S400
Bettinardi BB1
@protrajT

2

#453 Uhit

Uhit

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 270

Posted 07 January 2018 - 07:16 PM

View Posttnord, 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.

3

#454 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,311 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:3.1
GolfWRX Likes : 6085

Posted 07 January 2018 - 11:16 PM

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?
TM M3 10* Graphite Design BB6s
TM M1 3w 14*  Graphite Design BB7s
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 .  :)

4

#455 goph3r

goph3r

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 439564
  • Joined: 09/05/2016
  • Location:USA
GolfWRX Likes : 53

Posted 08 January 2018 - 12:00 AM

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.

××××××××××××××××××××××××
TM RBZ Stage2 Driver
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Callaway GBB Epic 7 Wood
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Mizuno JPX Tour 4-9
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Mizuno T7 46*,54*,58*,62*
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Wilson 1960s 8843-345
××××××××××××××××××××××××

5

#456 goph3r

goph3r

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 439564
  • Joined: 09/05/2016
  • Location:USA
GolfWRX Likes : 53

Posted 08 January 2018 - 12:04 AM

View PostShilgy, 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...
××××××××××××××××××××××××
TM RBZ Stage2 Driver
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Callaway GBB Epic 7 Wood
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Mizuno JPX Tour 4-9
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Mizuno T7 46*,54*,58*,62*
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Wilson 1960s 8843-345
××××××××××××××××××××××××

6

#457 new2g0lf

new2g0lf

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,417 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 114437
  • Joined: 09/06/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1594

Posted 08 January 2018 - 09:50 AM

View PostShilgy, 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.
Driver - XXIO 9 10.5*
Woods - XXIO 9 3W
Hybrids - XXIO 9 3H, 4H, 5H
Irons - Home - Callaway Epic 5-SW Away - TM P790 5-AW
Wedge - Vokey TVD 56* K Grind
Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB

7

#458 Shilgy

Shilgy

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,311 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 235237
  • Joined: 03/07/2013
  • Location:Phoenix
  • Handicap:3.1
GolfWRX Likes : 6085

Posted 08 January 2018 - 10:55 AM

View Postgoph3r, on 08 January 2018 - 12:04 AM, said:

View PostShilgy, 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.
TM M3 10* Graphite Design BB6s
TM M1 3w 14*  Graphite Design BB7s
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 .  :)

8

#459 Roadking2003

Roadking2003

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,846 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 406342
  • Joined: 12/21/2015
  • Location:Austin
  • Handicap:8.7
GolfWRX Likes : 1947

Posted 08 January 2018 - 11:56 AM

View Postgoph3r, 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.

9

#460 goph3r

goph3r

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 439564
  • Joined: 09/05/2016
  • Location:USA
GolfWRX Likes : 53

Posted 08 January 2018 - 12:59 PM

View PostRoadking2003, on 08 January 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

View Postgoph3r, 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.

××××××××××××××××××××××××
TM RBZ Stage2 Driver
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Callaway GBB Epic 7 Wood
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Mizuno JPX Tour 4-9
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Mizuno T7 46*,54*,58*,62*
××××××××××××××××××××××××
Wilson 1960s 8843-345
××××××××××××××××××××××××

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#461 kenstl

kenstl

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 321 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 171651
  • Joined: 03/28/2012
  • Location:St. Louis MO
  • Handicap:8
GolfWRX Likes : 145

Posted 12 January 2018 - 12:33 AM

The only thing missing from this Titleist rant is for it to be presented by Michael Breed!
Cobra LTD
Wishon 929 4 wood
Wishon 775 21 and 24 hybrids
SL Sterling Irons 6-SW
Maltby 60 Deg
Seemore 37" Carona Del Mar X4

11

#462 MadGolfer76

MadGolfer76

    Admiration is the state furthest from understanding.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,710 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 89700
  • Joined: 07/26/2009
  • Location:Maine
GolfWRX Likes : 9755

Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:00 AM

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.
Titleist 915D3 9.5/Diamana Whiteboard 63
??
Mizuno Mp-4 3-Pw/Dynamic Gold s300
Mizuno T7 52, 58/Dynamic Gold s300
Scotty Cameron Futura X7
Bridgestone Tour B XS

WITB

12

#463 anth

anth

    From the Land Down Under

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,468 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 22863
  • Joined: 12/18/2006
  • Handicap:4
GolfWRX Likes : 1095

Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:20 AM

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.
Callaway GBB Epic 10.5
Callaway BB Alpha 816 16
Srixon Z H45 19 Hybrid
Srixon Z U45 23 Utility
Srixon Z 545 5 - AW
Cleveland 588 RTX 2.0 54 & 60
Odyssey Metal X Milled #7
TaylorMade TP5

13

#464 Uhit

Uhit

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 270

Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:55 AM

View PostMadGolfer76, 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.


14

#465 Holy Moses

Holy Moses

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,604 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 180764
  • Joined: 05/14/2012
  • Location:Chicago
GolfWRX Likes : 3529

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:44 PM

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.

Ping G30 LS Tec 10* (DI-6X)
Ping G30 17* 5W (DI-7X)
Ping i20 3 (DI-95S), 4-UW (PX 6.0)
Ping Glide 56*SS, 60*ES (PX 6.0)
Ping Vault Arna

15

#466 Uhit

Uhit

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 270

Posted 21 February 2018 - 10:57 PM

View PostHoly 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. :read:


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.


16

#467 gvogel

gvogel

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 37680
  • Joined: 08/19/2007
  • Location:Western NY
  • Ebay ID:dbvogey
GolfWRX Likes : 1845

Posted 22 February 2018 - 08:57 AM

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.
On Sundays, I used to play hickory

17

#468 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,804 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6121

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:00 AM

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

18

#469 Uhit

Uhit

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 270

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:06 AM

View Postgvogel, 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."

19

#470 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,804 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6121

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:15 AM

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.

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.

20

#471 trackcoach13

trackcoach13

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 767 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 73092
  • Joined: 01/17/2009
  • Location:NJ
  • Handicap:5
GolfWRX Likes : 253

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM

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:

Posted Image
Driver: Cobra F8 w/ Aldila NV 2KXV Green 65 Stiff
3W: Titleist 917F2 w/Fujikura Speeder Pro Tour Spec 84 Stiff
2/3H: Cobra Amp Cell set to 3+ or 2I: Srixon Z U65 18 Degree w/Miyazaki Kaula 7s
Irons: Wilson FG Tour v6 4-GW   DG S300 AMT
Wedges: 56/11 and 60/09 Wilson FG Tour PMP Raw Tour Grind w/KBS Tour Hi Rev
Putter: Scotty Cameron Select Newport 2

21

#472 gvogel

gvogel

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 37680
  • Joined: 08/19/2007
  • Location:Western NY
  • Ebay ID:dbvogey
GolfWRX Likes : 1845

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM

View PostNorth 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.
On Sundays, I used to play hickory

22

#473 gvogel

gvogel

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 37680
  • Joined: 08/19/2007
  • Location:Western NY
  • Ebay ID:dbvogey
GolfWRX Likes : 1845

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:43 AM

View PostNorth 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.
On Sundays, I used to play hickory

23

#474 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,804 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6121

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:47 AM

View Postgvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

View PostNorth 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.

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

24

#475 Uhit

Uhit

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 450896
  • Joined: 01/06/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 270

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:49 AM

View Postgvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

View PostNorth 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... :derisive:

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


25

#476 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,804 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6121

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:55 AM

View PostUhit, on 22 February 2018 - 09:49 AM, said:

View Postgvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

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

26

#477 gvogel

gvogel

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,160 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 37680
  • Joined: 08/19/2007
  • Location:Western NY
  • Ebay ID:dbvogey
GolfWRX Likes : 1845

Posted 22 February 2018 - 09:59 AM

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

View Postgvogel, on 22 February 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

View PostNorth 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.
On Sundays, I used to play hickory

27

#478 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,804 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6121

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:06 AM

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

28

#479 cxx

cxx

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,746 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 142023
  • Joined: 10/10/2011
GolfWRX Likes : 740

Posted 22 February 2018 - 11:10 AM

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.

29

#480 North Butte

North Butte

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,804 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
GolfWRX Likes : 6121

Posted 22 February 2018 - 11:31 AM

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

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



1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    CGM

GolfWRX Sponsors