Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The official "the-ball-goes-too-far" poll

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭backspin.


    RoadRunner wrote: »
    It is. Groove dept/width can be easily measured. Broomstick putters can be easily seen. Can you propose a way of bringing in a standardised level of retarded ball flight that would be adhered to by all manufacturers, can be tested easily, and will not lead to accusations of cheating by players/ball manufacturers?

    OR B):

    Are you one of those who think that a type of gentleman's agreement among manufacturers will suffice long term. Whereby each manufacturer would happily produce a ball designed to not be able fly over the bunkers?

    Look, in all things you got to look at the scale of a problem and the proposed solution.

    In F1 in 1955 one single incident caused the death of 84 people and seriously injured 120+ more. Later in the 60's and 70's, 1 in 3 drivers stepping into a race car would die in their own car, most by being burned alive upside-down. This is an example of a problem necessitating strict regulation (of car design) moving forwards, even despite the fact that it would open up regular cheating accusations.

    I'm just not sure we're there yet with the enormity of our problem. And because "Jack says so" isn't good enough for me yet :)

    Something needs to be done though. With so much money in golf now it is going to attract more super athletic people and they will end up with 400 yard drives. That will make a mockery of some of the famous courses out there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,839 ✭✭✭Russman


    backspin. wrote: »
    Something needs to be done though. With so much money in golf now it is going to attract more super athletic people and they will end up with 400 yard drives. That will make a mockery of some of the famous courses out there.

    I think that's one of the key points. I agree that "because Jack says so" isn't really a good enough reason, but at the same time, where do we go with course design and construction ? TV golf is well on its way to being almost too boring to watch, with a few exceptions. Look at that place they had the US Open last year, pretty much a field with flags, but way over 7,000 yards long and still it wasn't a challenge really.

    There'll be a generational thing too where a kid growing up today won't know what its like to not be hitting it 300yds, he'll obviously have a different opinion to someone who grew up knowing who the 3 or 4 guys who could hit it 300 were.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭HighLine


    I've said it in other threads... watch the 13th at Augusta (one of my favourite holes) this year. There will be more drivers and wedges hit into than ever before. And there will be lots of comments on it then and rightly so because one of the greatest holes in golf is steadily being overpowered by distance.

    It's obviously a combination of 1) golfers being more athletic, 2) club technology and 3) ball improvement. I'd like to see changes to the later two. Long guys will still be longer but existing courses will remain a challenge and new courses won't need to be 8000 yards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,902 ✭✭✭RoadRunner


    Many references to 13th Augusta. Lets call a spade a spade. That's a par4 in all but name for the elite. Drives that go 10 yards less wont change that.

    Would a minimum loft allowance for clubs above a certain length be a better way of 'saving golf'. E.g. putter length okay, but driver length clubs can't be lower than 12.5 degrees. You want a 9deg driver.. okay but you are limitted to x-length shaft. Many would have to throw out their drivers at some point in the future. But more more enforceable and easier to test.

    (For the record I dont back the above idea, but I prefer it then messing with the ball)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,839 ✭✭✭Russman


    RoadRunner wrote: »
    Many references to 13th Augusta. Lets call a spade a spade. That's a par4 in all but name for the elite. Drives that go 10 yards less wont change that.

    Would a minimum loft allowance for clubs above a certain length be a better way of 'saving golf'. E.g. putter length okay, but driver length clubs can't be lower than 12.5 degrees. You want a 9deg driver.. okay but you are limitted to x-length shaft. Many would have to throw out their drivers at some point in the future. But more more enforceable and easier to test.

    (For the record I dont back the above idea, but I prefer it then messing with the ball)

    Yeah, but you're into massive problems there with manufacturing tolerances on clubs. You could pick 10 drivers from the same manufacturer off the shelf, all stamped with the same loft, and chances are they'll all be different.
    Of course the same argument could be made about the ball, but, with no technical knowledge whatsoever, I'd suggest its probably easier to restrict the ball rather than regulate driver loft, length etc., there's just too many variables.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,453 ✭✭✭valoren


    One method to prevent the 'classic' courses from becoming obselete could be to look at having them 'listed'.
    Just like old buildings which are designated as listed for structural protective reasons.

    If a course applies for it and becomes 'listed' then only for professional or elite amateur championships;

    A 'driver' is prohibited from use on holes measuring less than say 475 yards for example.
    Like the rule for not 'grounding' the club when in a hazard, on specified holes you must 'bag' the driver.

    Yes, the longest hitters will still be pushing 300 with the 3 wood or 2 wood but they won't be pushing 400 with the driver making a mockery of 'classic' holes and courses.

    Everyone else get's to benefit from technology and there is no need for the hyperbole about a need for 8,000+ yard resort courses where the balls rolls 40 yards as is. No more retro-fitting or limiting technology, you keep things in line with current regulations.

    And there is the sense that something is being done about this 'problem'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,902 ✭✭✭RoadRunner


    Russman wrote: »
    I'd suggest its probably easier to restrict the ball rather than regulate driver loft, length etc., there's just too many variables.

    Clubs variables are more easily testable and there already are some standards on club tollerances. E.g. COR on driver face.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,684 ✭✭✭dan_ep82


    Dynamic loft far out ways static loft on equipment.

    Not everyone on tour plays 9.5° drivers and you can bet they can hit 1up instead if 3 up to negate the difference.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,902 ✭✭✭RoadRunner


    dan_ep82 wrote: »
    Dynamic loft far out ways static loft on equipment.

    Not everyone on tour plays 9.5° drivers and you can bet they can hit 1up instead if 3 up to negate the difference.

    A 9.5 degree driver hit up with a 115+ swing speed will defo travel further than, say, a 11.5 loft which is not hit up. Take off angle will be the same, but higher loft will spin more and have a steep desc angle losing carry and roll. You are guaranteed it will hit right in that big fairway bunker for sure :)

    I don't want to defend this loft point too much though, I just threw it out without thinking too much about it. I'm not sure I even agree with it. So I'm going to draw a line and I won't defend it any further.
    ________Line________


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,960 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Control the number and depth of dimples allowed on the ball, job done.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,902 ✭✭✭RoadRunner


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Control the number and depth of dimples allowed on the ball, job done.

    could-should.jpg?w=620


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,331 ✭✭✭mike12


    I'm pretty sure a pro v from ten years ago will still go much the same distance as a new one. Players are the biggest difference, tiger was the only athlete playing then, look at the size and physical strength of the top guys now.
    Club head speed has increased not how the driver and ball react.
    Ban the gym? Players over six foot? Get back to Tom kite and Monty as the standard type golfer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,391 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    http://www.golfpunkhq.com/equipment/article/callaway-launches-controversial-new-golf-ball-

    So, according to Sergio the new chrome soft has him hitting 19 yards further with no impact on spin around the greens. If its true that is a significant gain. Very difficult to pinpoint though whether it's ball, clubs, etc... that are variously contributing


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,839 ✭✭✭Russman


    Without necessarily doubting Sergio's numbers, in all fairness he's hardly likely to be dropped by TaylorMade, jump to Callaway, and claim anything other than the Callaway ball/clubs being better for him. I can't imagine him saying "the Chrome Soft goes almost as far as my old Taylor Made ball":)

    I think the added distance is probably a combination of lots of factors and not just one, as some people claim. Is the ball the biggest single factor ? I don't know for sure, but I'd love to see some data/studies on it.

    I'd even love to see a new Pro V1 from 10/12 years ago tested against a current version one, maybe also against an old Tour Professional or Tour Balata too. I'd find it hard to believe the current one doesn't go further for tour level swing speeds. For your average club golfer, I wouldn't think it makes much difference. But I'd love to see a test to go on, rather than gut feeling.

    Swing speed on tour has increased, but not by a whole lot really. In 2007 the 50th ranked guy was at 115.26mph and the 100th ranked was at 112.7mph, last season those positions were 116.62mph and 113.48mph - not all that much in it. Perhaps its the combination of swing speed AND understanding better launch conditions - loft, spin, launch angle etc. etc. There's a video somewhere on Youtube of Crossfield gaining a huge amount of yards (maybe 24 ?) with the same driver, simply by changing his attack, his club speed stayed the same throughout IIRC.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    I think there's something of an issue with the 'bombers' increasing domination the sport. The ball may well be the issue but only focusing on the ball shouldn't be the solution.

    Personally, I'd prefer if they didn't tweak the ball, but tweaked the fairways and tweaked the greens, rather than simply made the ball softer and/or courses longer. Narrower landing areas, better (more strategic) placing of hazards and smaller greens with a narrower profile and stronger breaks might introduce more of a challenge.

    Thought the 10th at the Riviera for the last few days was a great hole to watch - 315 yards so anyone could drive it, but the green, it's relationship to the fairway and the arrangement of bunkers meant they couldn't just step up and blast it down the fairway.

    There may also be an argument for not following the sun......sure, it's very glamorous and exotic to sit in the cold and watch the pros knock it around in the sun in the Middle East or Southern California, but run a few events in the spring in areas with more changeable weather and see how they managed. Although, seeing pros wrapped up in wet gear trying battling the wind and cold doesn't make for great TV :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    As you might expect, driving distances continue to creep up.....

    ‘Unusual and concerning’: Distance report shows significant yardage gains on pro tours
    Professional golfers are driving the ball farther than ever, with 2017 showing the most significant cross-tour gains in more than a decade, according to a report released by the USGA and R&A Monday.

    The annual Distance Report shows a three-yard average gain across the seven most prominent professional tours (PGA, European, Web.com, Japan, PGA Tour Champions, LPGA and Ladies European). According to a joint press release by the governing bodies, that gain "across so many tours in a single season is unusual and concerning."

    I thought this chart was the most interesting bit - it seems to suggest the Web.com Tour players are hitting it longer than the PGA Tour?

    image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn-s3.si.com%2Fimages%2FScreen%2520Shot%25202018-03-05%2520at%25207.59.09%2520AM.png&w=700&q=85


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,827 ✭✭✭fred funk }{


    Creep up? Over 14 years it's only increase by a few yards. Proves the hysteria as just that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭HighLine


    The graph dating back further is more illustrative. As above, the Web.com Tour stats are very surprising.

    (Image taken from full report here - http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2018/2017-distance-report-final.pdf )

    444941.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,391 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    I think that part of it was saying from 2006-2016 it went up by, on average 0.3 yards per year, then in 2017 jumped by 3 yards. Doesnt sound massive on the face of it, but significant relative to the average gains in the prior 10 years


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,827 ✭✭✭fred funk }{


    Equipment is only one part. Players are athletes now and much more powerful. I'm sure if you could see the physique of the top 10 players 15 years ago compared to today's top 10 you'd see a big difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭Tom.D.BJJ


    I don't think the ball goes too far, but I do think golf course design needs to adapt. I don't mean get longer either, I mean offer different angles, rough and bunker placement, green size and TREES


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,827 ✭✭✭fred funk }{


    Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »
    I don't think the ball goes too far, but I do think golf course design needs to adapt. I don't mean get longer either, I mean offer different angles, rough and bunker placement, green size and TREES

    Agree. It doesn't help that the R&A, for The Open, cut the fairways with mowers that are for greens either. The ball runs on a mile.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Agree. It doesn't help that the R&A, for The Open, cut the fairways with mowers that are for greens either. The ball runs on a mile.

    I think I prefer it to run a mile on the ground because then where it ends up becomes a bit more of a matter of chance - rather than bombing it 300 yards and landing in chosen location (give or take a few feet) the run out across humps and hummocks etc means its a bit more of a lottery.

    I generally agree that the ball is only part of the problem and that a lot of what's been complained about can be addressed by changing courses (not necessarily lengthening them) by, for example, making greater use of micro-conturing and messing around with sight lines etc to introduce confusing visual cues.

    I suppose the concern the powers-that-be have is that these are average driving distances meaning some players are probably longer consistently off the tee than the averages and what that means for some of the older courses where there is no room to expand or extend.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,497 ✭✭✭Hoboo




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭backspin.


    Hoboo wrote: »

    This really stood out from the article -

    'Another factor is Nike exiting the equipment and ball markets. An analysis shows former Nike players picking up an average of 7.1 yards after switching over to new clubs and balls. One player picked up over 15 yards for the year simply by changing gear.'


  • Registered Users Posts: 417 ✭✭martinkop


    Good response from Titleist. Interesting bit about how the web.com graduates are a lot shorter on the main tour. Shows a lot about how course set-up and weather effect the year to year variation.

    https://www.golfdigest.com/story/titleist-calls-distance-reports-findings-not-suddenly-indicative-of-a-harmful-trend


  • Registered Users Posts: 417 ✭✭martinkop


    More detail in here. I know Titleist are obviously defending the ball, but it's an interesting read across different trends affecting distance.

    http://media.titleist.com/images/titleist/files/US/traditionandtechnology.pdf


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,476 ✭✭✭ShriekingSheet


    martinkop wrote: »
    More detail in here. I know Titleist are obviously defending the ball, but it's an interesting read across different trends affecting distance.

    http://media.titleist.com/images/titleist/files/US/traditionandtechnology.pdf

    Yeah, that is some seriously shameless propaganda right there. I'm a fan of Titleist. But they shouldn't really have a say in the argument. They're a business solely focused on commercial gain (which is fine). There's no way they should be let divert attention from a big issue in the game.

    If they thought they'd make more money with a restricted ball, they'd have supporting statistics and a convincing PDF for that too. Regardless of the benefit/detriment to golf.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,684 ✭✭✭dan_ep82


    I think this is why you hear analysts some times say statistics are dangerous. Two different views leading to two different results from the same data.

    I think it would be a mistake not to listen to the major ball manufacturers, who else has decades worth of data and thousands and thousands of hours of testing. It would be better if they presented the facts without opinion but I think while we don't have to agree with them its important they give their views aswell.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    I think Titleist do deserve to be heard. The other parties in this argument are probably more than happy for everyone to blame the ball if it means that clubs/clubheads escape scrutiny and courses are spared having to spend money on re-designing holes.

    You can't really stop players getting stronger or fitter, but clubs, balls and courses can be adjusted.

    Maybe there's an argument for setting some parameters regarding the flex of club shafts and introducing a requirement for some minimum level of flex. at the moment the only requirement seems to be that shafts cannot flex asymmetrically.


Advertisement