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.

- - - - -

The primary anti-roll back the ball argument


254 replies to this topic

#1 NevinW

NevinW

    Major Winner

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,032 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 76477
  • Joined: 03/01/2009
  • Location:Las Vegas
  • Handicap:5
GolfWRX Likes : 497

Posted 13 June 2018 - 10:54 AM

I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball:  That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is:  Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board.  Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards.  Nothing else would change.  Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated.  Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses.  Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152.   How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#2 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,015 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1625

Posted 13 June 2018 - 10:58 AM

I think it’s fair to say that most recreational players get a disproportionate amount of joy from hitting the ball as far as possible. Further restrictions on ball flight (the ball already has been “rolled back” to its current place) would reduce this joy.

2

#3 wildcatden

wildcatden

    China Cat Sunflower

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 481904
  • Joined: 09/14/2017
  • Location:The Bridges - 74.3/144
GolfWRX Likes : 556

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:02 AM

The fix is truly simple (especially for the PGA):  Stop mowing fairways down to concrete-like surfaces, narrow the fairways, and grow the rough another inch or so.

3

#4 Christosterone

Christosterone

    Reverse C

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,076 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 180350
  • Joined: 05/11/2012
  • Location:Texas
  • Handicap:+54
GolfWRX Likes : 2624

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:03 AM

Jacks steel driver shaft was 2” shorter than Stenson’s 3W..
Just sayin’

Not saying the ball hasn’t changed, only that equipment improvements are equal to ball upgrades in terms of distance gained...
The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho



-Chris

Edited by Christosterone, 13 June 2018 - 11:05 AM.

Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX

Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape

4

#5 15th Club

15th Club

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,548 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 248249
  • Joined: 04/30/2013
  • Location:Michigan
  • Ebay ID:cdbplc
GolfWRX Likes : 822

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:07 AM

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

Jacks steel driver shaft was 2” shorter than Stenson’s 3W..
Just sayin’

Not saying the ball hasn’t changed, only that equipment is equal to it in terms of distance...



-Chris

Note the flagstick.  Dead downwind in a Fifeshire gale.


5

#6 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,015 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1625

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:08 AM

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).

6

#7 ex0dus

ex0dus

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 429694
  • Joined: 06/19/2016
  • Location:MD
  • Handicap:2
GolfWRX Likes : 341

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
Cobra King Ltd Pro
Nike SQ2 13*
Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
Machine adjuster putter
Bridgestone 330 ball

7

#8 knock it close

knock it close

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,234 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 101876
  • Joined: 01/13/2010
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta
  • Handicap:+2.4
GolfWRX Likes : 5771

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:11 AM

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..
M2, maybe
915 FD
913 HD
712u 3
714 AP2 4-p
SM5 53, 59
Circa62

8

#9 BlackDiamondPar5

BlackDiamondPar5

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,705 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 71580
  • Joined: 12/30/2008
  • Location:Western NY
GolfWRX Likes : 3239

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:11 AM

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
Most guys are bigger, stronger and all have new methods of training to optimize distance that simply wasn't around 20 years ago.

There's another video of long drivers using persimmon woods and crushing it.

9

#10 Christosterone

Christosterone

    Reverse C

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,076 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 180350
  • Joined: 05/11/2012
  • Location:Texas
  • Handicap:+54
GolfWRX Likes : 2624

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:13 AM

View Postraynorfan1, on 13 June 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).

I should’ve said the graphite shaft in tandem with the 460cc metal head

-Chris

Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX

Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#11 clevited

clevited

    Don't think you are, know you are.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 484290
  • Joined: 10/13/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 350

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:16 AM

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.

I have seen that video too, and if you take a look at his numbers and plug them into flightscope optimizer, they are only 6 yards different with the driver.  I am not sure how his GCquad got 11 yards with only 3 mph difference in ball speed and nearly every other launch perameter the same.  Basically, I think real life the distances would have been even closer just from my experience with many launch monitors and their algorithm differences.

All and all, 11 yards isn't much, 6 yards is even less difference.  The ball change from balata to prov is likely almost nil.
Posted Image

11

#12 Christosterone

Christosterone

    Reverse C

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,076 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 180350
  • Joined: 05/11/2012
  • Location:Texas
  • Handicap:+54
GolfWRX Likes : 2624

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:17 AM

I loved this... Zach Johnson hit 3 balls as did Rory
It was at altitude and makes u really appreciate the swing speeds of the long ago


Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX

Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape

12

#13 DFS PFD

DFS PFD

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 485676
  • Joined: 10/30/2017
  • Handicap:1.8
GolfWRX Likes : 446

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:18 AM

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:13 AM, said:

View Postraynorfan1, on 13 June 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).

I should’ve said the graphite shaft in tandem with the 460cc metal head

-Chris
Any of those three, the easiest to manipulate (rollback) at this point would be?
F8+ Kuro Kage DC 70 TX
M2 Tour 15* Kuro Kage DC 70TX
790 UDI Tensei Pro White 100TX
4-PW Nike VR Pro Blades X7's
50* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
55* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
60* Hi-Toe Tour Issue S400
009

13

#14 Christosterone

Christosterone

    Reverse C

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,076 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 180350
  • Joined: 05/11/2012
  • Location:Texas
  • Handicap:+54
GolfWRX Likes : 2624

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:21 AM

View PostDFS PFD, on 13 June 2018 - 11:18 AM, said:

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:13 AM, said:

View Postraynorfan1, on 13 June 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).

I should’ve said the graphite shaft in tandem with the 460cc metal head

-Chris
Any of those three, the easiest to manipulate (rollback) at this point would be?

I disagree the ball or anything needs to be rolled back and am intransigent in this thought...

-Chris
Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX

Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape

14

#15 DFS PFD

DFS PFD

    Tour Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 485676
  • Joined: 10/30/2017
  • Handicap:1.8
GolfWRX Likes : 446

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:23 AM

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:21 AM, said:

View PostDFS PFD, on 13 June 2018 - 11:18 AM, said:

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:13 AM, said:

View Postraynorfan1, on 13 June 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:03 AM, said:

The graphite shaft was the true distance impact factor imho

I think if you look at the USGA chart (plotting avg. distance over time, with some equipment introductions overlaid) you see that there were three step-function changes that correlate with new technology: (1) graphite shafts; (2) oversized titanium heads; (3) golf ball improvements. Of these three, I believe oversized heads drove the single biggest gains (and created the USGA rules on COR etc.).

I should’ve said the graphite shaft in tandem with the 460cc metal head

-Chris
Any of those three, the easiest to manipulate (rollback) at this point would be?

I disagree the ball or anything needs to be rolled back and am intransigent in this thought...

-Chris
Okay I am well aware of that, we're playing in a hypothetical world on this board. If one of those components needed to be rolled back, which would be easiest. You seem well informed and I appreciate that, simply looking for input, not antagonizing.

F8+ Kuro Kage DC 70 TX
M2 Tour 15* Kuro Kage DC 70TX
790 UDI Tensei Pro White 100TX
4-PW Nike VR Pro Blades X7's
50* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
55* MD4 Raw Tour issue S400
60* Hi-Toe Tour Issue S400
009

15

#16 15th Club

15th Club

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,548 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 248249
  • Joined: 04/30/2013
  • Location:Michigan
  • Ebay ID:cdbplc
GolfWRX Likes : 822

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:25 AM

View Postwildcatden, on 13 June 2018 - 11:02 AM, said:

The fix is truly simple (especially for the PGA):  Stop mowing fairways down to concrete-like surfaces, narrow the fairways, and grow the rough another inch or so.

{Sigh.}  Do you realize, that that "simple fix" is just a great big negative, for the quality of golf in the service of simply holding down scoring?  I mean, the USGA has done it many times before.  And they'd argue that they are trying to identify the best golfers and that narrowing fairways and growing rough puts an emphasis on accuracy and nerves and serves as a bit of a brake on distance as players try to hit narrowed fairways for fear of punitive rough.

But that's old thinking, in my view.  The new generation of history-minded golf course architects want to return to width; to give players options on the best lines and re-introduce course management and strategy.  To open up as many lines, angles and choices as possible; to make hazards more strategic and less punitive.

16

#17 clevited

clevited

    Don't think you are, know you are.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 484290
  • Joined: 10/13/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 350

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:28 AM

View Postknock it close, on 13 June 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..

Those results are quite opposite of Shiels, very surprising.  Given the launch characteristics they should have gone almost the same distance and very similar to Shiels numbers.  He did note the weight difference, which I suspect what the entire difference in distance.  The question is, where those balls made to that lighter weight or did they lose weight over time sitting on the shelf like he mentions in his test?

If I were to guess, and please correct me if my guess is wrong (I want truth), those balls likely lost weight over time due to the liquid centers.  Seems unlikely they weight that much less new.

Also, being as Sheils used GCQ and Andrew used Trackman makes sense to the differences.  Trackman tracked the entire flight, GCQ only catches launch perameters and then calculates.
Posted Image

17

#18 North Texas

North Texas

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 103646
  • Joined: 02/18/2010
  • Location:North of Dallas
GolfWRX Likes : 2320

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:28 AM

View Postclevited, on 13 June 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.

I have seen that video too, and if you take a look at his numbers and plug them into flightscope optimizer, they are only 6 yards different with the driver.  I am not sure how his GCquad got 11 yards with only 3 mph difference in ball speed and nearly every other launch perameter the same.  Basically, I think real life the distances would have been even closer just from my experience with many launch monitors and their algorithm differences.

All and all, 11 yards isn't much, 6 yards is even less difference.  The ball change from balata to prov is likely almost nil.

In the Andrew Rice link above the pro v only flew 47 yards farther than the balata. You may consider that "nil" but I damn sure don't.

18

#19 15th Club

15th Club

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,548 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 248249
  • Joined: 04/30/2013
  • Location:Michigan
  • Ebay ID:cdbplc
GolfWRX Likes : 822

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:30 AM

Quote

Most guys are bigger, stronger and all have new methods of training to optimize distance that simply wasn't around 20 years ago.


As we have discussed more times than I can recount, I am not sure that I accept the notion that Fred Couples' or Tiger Woods' current length, compared to 20 years ago, has anything to do with physical fitness.

But even if it were, I'd argue strongly that since nobody would dream of regulating fitness, the thing to do is to regulate one of the most inconsequential things which is the golf ball.

If you think I am saying that the golf ball has to take the blame for (presumed) improved athleticism, you have it exactly right.  That is not punishing any or all of the athletes.  It is protecting the golf course.

19

#20 ex0dus

ex0dus

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 429694
  • Joined: 06/19/2016
  • Location:MD
  • Handicap:2
GolfWRX Likes : 341

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:30 AM

View Postknock it close, on 13 June 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..


I played college golf in the 80s with those balata balls. If he was carrying them only 225 with a 110 swing speed then he was either hitting them very poorly or the balls had degraded due to age.

Cobra King Ltd Pro
Nike SQ2 13*
Mizuno MP630 clk hybrid 20*
Bstone J40 DPC 4 iron
Cleveland 588 mb 5-pw
Ping Gorge wedges 56*, 52*
Cally Mack Daddy PM grind 60*
Machine adjuster putter
Bridgestone 330 ball

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

#21 clevited

clevited

    Don't think you are, know you are.

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 484290
  • Joined: 10/13/2017
GolfWRX Likes : 350

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:37 AM

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:30 AM, said:

View Postknock it close, on 13 June 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..


I played college golf in the 80s with those balata balls. If he was carrying them only 225 with a 110 swing speed then he was either hitting them very poorly or the balls had degraded due to age.

I suspect this is so, I am trying to find original specs of the balls.  I am guessing it might be mostly due to weight change.
Posted Image

21

#22 Ashley Schaeffer

Ashley Schaeffer

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,722 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 258664
  • Joined: 06/24/2013
GolfWRX Likes : 1611

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:37 AM

View PostNevinW, on 13 June 2018 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball:  That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is:  Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board.  Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards.  Nothing else would change.  Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated.  Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses.  Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152.   How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?

Amateurs hitting a 7 iron 160 instead of 152 isn't catastrophic, either.  Nor is the current state of the game.  Change all manufacturing so amateurs will hit a 7 iron a mere 8 yards shorter?  Meh.  Can't get behind that.  Neither will OEMs.  That's why absolutely nothing will happen with the ball.

I think the USGA should focus on capping the length of courses.  The cheapest way to address the issue of courses having to buy land to add length is to disallow it.  That way, the USGA can still get its rocks off by "governing", and all of us can play golf exactly like we have for the last 20 years.
Driver: 9.5*
3W: 15*
5W: 19*-ish?
Irons: 4-PW
Wedges: 50*, 54*, 58*
Putter:  Putter

22

#23 Christosterone

Christosterone

    Reverse C

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 1,076 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 180350
  • Joined: 05/11/2012
  • Location:Texas
  • Handicap:+54
GolfWRX Likes : 2624

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:38 AM

Graeme McDowell still has a beautiful reverse c even with a putter


Sixon Z745 Japanese Tour 430cc Tour AD-DJ7 XX

Srixon zU45 (2,3) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Srixon JDM Z945 (4-PW) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

Cleveland 588 DSG(52,56,60) KBS Tour 130X White Pearl 2* upright

dumbest putter ever...backstryke with tons of lead tape

23

#24 Ashley Schaeffer

Ashley Schaeffer

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,722 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 258664
  • Joined: 06/24/2013
GolfWRX Likes : 1611

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:42 AM

View PostChristosterone, on 13 June 2018 - 11:38 AM, said:

Graeme McDowell still has a beautiful reverse c even with a putter



Never would have happened if he had to play an 8802 with a balata.  Nobody should ever hit a putter further than Nicklaus.
Roll back the ball and putter MOI!
Driver: 9.5*
3W: 15*
5W: 19*-ish?
Irons: 4-PW
Wedges: 50*, 54*, 58*
Putter:  Putter

24

#25 tobiasjd

tobiasjd

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 350 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 311799
  • Joined: 04/28/2014
  • Location:Houston, TX
GolfWRX Likes : 151

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:47 AM

To me, it's not the max carry, it's the less spin.  Todays golfer can swing for the fences with no fear.

Cobra King LTD Black
Titleist 910FD 15° 3w
Callaway Apex 3-4 hybrid
PING i200 5
PING iBlade 6 - PW
PING Glide 50° SS
PING Glide 2.0 Stealth  56°, 60° SS
Bettinardi BB1

25

#26 North Texas

North Texas

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 103646
  • Joined: 02/18/2010
  • Location:North of Dallas
GolfWRX Likes : 2320

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:48 AM

View Postknock it close, on 13 June 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..

One of the things that I found interesting in the above comparison test was that the Pro V1X 332 went further than the current Pro V1 X they used.

Wonder why Titleist quit making that ball? Maybe they were forced to roll it back :taunt:

26

#27 sdandrea

sdandrea

    Steve

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,491 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 117468
  • Joined: 11/14/2010
  • Location:Fredericksburg, VA & Hernando FL
  • Handicap:11
  • Ebay ID:sdan6017
GolfWRX Likes : 1307

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:49 AM

View PostNevinW, on 13 June 2018 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'm not sure I understand one of the primary argument that is used against the idea of rolling back the ball:  That it hurts the recreational player who doesn't hit the ball far enough as it is. My question is:  Let's say they made the golf ball go 5% shorter across the board.  Why couldn't everyone play 6500 yard courses rather than 6900 yards.  Nothing else would change.  Everyone moves up a set of tees and the very back tees are eliminated.  Shorter golf courses means quicker rounds, less fertilizer and expenses.  Instead of hitting a 7 iron 160, one would hit it 152.   How would this be catastrophic to the amateur game?

9 wood for me.................................... :swoon:
Cobra Max 10.5*
TM RBZ 5W & 9W
PING IsI-K   4 - SW
PING Chipo
Odyssey V-Line

  
"Never buy a putter until you've had a chance to throw it"

27

#28 raynorfan1

raynorfan1

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,015 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 119065
  • Joined: 12/17/2010
GolfWRX Likes : 1625

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:50 AM

What I continue to not understand is what problem the powers that be are trying to solve for.

We'll see a tournament contested over the weekend where the winning score will be slightly under par on one of the greatest architectural examples in all of golf.

But who cares if guys on the PGA Tour drive the ball 400+ yards, and post up winning scores of (-25) on courses that are purpose built (the TPC courses) for their weekly reality television show?

28

#29 North Texas

North Texas

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 103646
  • Joined: 02/18/2010
  • Location:North of Dallas
GolfWRX Likes : 2320

Posted 13 June 2018 - 11:53 AM

View Posttobiasjd, on 13 June 2018 - 11:47 AM, said:

To me, it's not the max carry, it's the less spin.  Todays golfer can swing for the fences with no fear.

The most important thing in today's game is how far you hit while keeping it reasonably accurate.

To me, that's backwards.

29

#30 knock it close

knock it close

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,234 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 101876
  • Joined: 01/13/2010
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta
  • Handicap:+2.4
GolfWRX Likes : 5771

Posted 13 June 2018 - 12:00 PM

View PostNorth Texas, on 13 June 2018 - 11:48 AM, said:

View Postknock it close, on 13 June 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

View Postex0dus, on 13 June 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Rick Shiels did a video comparing todays Prov1 to a wound ball from the 90s. The new ball carried 11 yards farther with the driver, impressive but hardly a game changer.
Ya and Andrew Rice did a comparison and the balata carried 47 yards less https://www.andrewri...-of-a-golf-ball . One review shouldn't be taken as gospel..

One of the things that I found interesting in the above comparison test was that the Pro V1X 332 went further than the current Pro V1 X they used.

Wonder why Titleist quit making that ball? Maybe they were forced to roll it back :taunt:
They didn't use the the new 1X they only tested the '05 V1 and V1x and the "new" V1 (this was also from 2011 so it would of been that iteration of the ball)

Edited by knock it close, 13 June 2018 - 12:00 PM.

M2, maybe
915 FD
913 HD
712u 3
714 AP2 4-p
SM5 53, 59
Circa62

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