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

13»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,498 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Skewed stats, stronger players, and........ juiced up drivers :eek:

    If you haven't 20 minutes, play from 7.

    https://mygolfspy.com/mygolfspy-podcast-usga-distance-report-and-the-ball-rollback/


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


    Its a tough one for the ruling bodies to get "right".

    From what I gather looking at some of the graphs, the big jump in distance was around the turn of the century into the early 2000s. Now, I'm not a long hitter by any stretch (driver SS tops out around 103 when I'm throwing myself at it), but I know from practising in the same spots and playing my home course since I was a kid, I'm not really hitting it any further now than I was back around 2002/2003, even with the hot faced drivers that were allowed back then. I know that's totally subjective, but I've been as low as 3 and as high as 9 in that period so I've a reasonable idea of how I'm playing/striking, and my sense is that my distance is more or less the same.

    My point is that, if the ball was rolled back to say the year 2000, would your average club golfer even notice ? Some of the scaremongering would suggest that it would drive people away from the game because guys would be giving up x amount of yards, and you'd be making the game harder for people - I'm not sure I buy it to be honest.

    I've seen people on Sky (particularly Dennis Pugh, who you would think knows what he's talking about) say that you really have to be swinging over about 113mph to get the real benefit of the modern ball. Realistically how many people, other than elite players, and internet golfers :D, swing it that fast ?

    I think if they could roll the ball back in such a way that it was mostly the 110mph+ swingers who were effected, the proposal might succeed. Joe amateur probably won't notice a 5 yard drop in distance but a tour pro would certainly feel 10 yards. Not that I want to pick on fast swingers, but if they are now gaining a disproportionate advantage from the modern ball, maybe its right to try bring it back to maybe 10/15 years ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,498 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    But its got little to do with the ball. The stats are completely skewed and their methodology is amateurish at best.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,392 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Rick Sheils was doing club comparison tests there a couple of months ago, taking sample drivers from the different manufacturers over the last 5-6 years to see if there really was any significant movement in the club technology over that time.

    I think that, from memory, the Titleist & Ping clubs showed small but relatively negligible changes, Cobra had wacky results, & TM showed more noticeable changes when they introduced the low forward CG clubs such as the SLDR & R15. But even at that, the numbers weren't close to the claims by the manufacturers.

    I sent him a message asking if, given its a topical subject, he could get hold of a sample of golf balls covering the last 20 years say, and perform a similar comparison test, to see if there is any significant difference in performance based on the changes in ball tech. It would be a small sampling I know, but would be interested to see his numbers.

    He never replied to the message, so I guess its not interesting enough.

    Might try message Crossfield too & see if he bites & sticks a vid up on his Youtube Channel on it


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


    Hoboo wrote: »
    But its got little to do with the ball. The stats are completely skewed and their methodology is amateurish at best.

    Why has it got little to do with the ball ?
    Of course there are other factors involved, but why do you say little to do with the ball ?
    Are Jack, Tiger, Rory, Watson et al all somehow wrong ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,498 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Russman wrote: »
    Why has it got little to do with the ball ?
    Of course there are other factors involved, but why do you say little to do with the ball ?
    Are Jack, Tiger, Rory, Watson et al all somehow wrong ?

    Have a read of the report I added above, and a listen to the podcast. Some very good arguments being put forward, including why Rory and Jack in particular have a vested interest.

    Can take it with a pinch of salt, but they make some very basic yet compelling arguments. Titleists report alone makes a mockery of their methodology. Of course the ball makes a difference, but not to the extent its being portrayed (according to them).


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,498 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Rick Sheils was doing club comparison tests there a couple of months ago, taking sample drivers from the different manufacturers over the last 5-6 years to see if there really was any significant movement in the club technology over that time.


    From memory Rick only focused on distance, but considering their main selling point year on year is yardage gains it was eye opening. Ping G20 outperformed G30, but thats only one player, hitting 5 balls, but. certainly for him there was very little if any difference. If its a robot hitting out of centre every time then maybe there was gains, who knows. Id like to see dispersion and off centre hits included too.

    According to the golfspy guys there are strong rumours of pros drivers being 'juiced up' beyond regulation limits, and the heads in the tour trucks which are randomly tested are not the ones being used in the bag, which aren't tested.

    I hope not, but where theres smoke.......


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


    Hoboo wrote: »
    According to the golfspy guys there are strong rumours of pros drivers being 'juiced up' beyond regulation limits, and the heads in the tour trucks which are randomly tested are not the ones being used in the bag, which aren't tested.

    I hope not, but where theres smoke.......

    Yeah I saw that the other day alright, you'd certainly wonder.........

    I guess we'll know its true if some plodder in the lower reaches of the order of merit is pinged for a non-conforming driver as a shot across the bows of the field :D!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,498 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Russman wrote: »
    I guess we'll know its true if some plodder in the lower reaches of the order of merit is pinged for a non-conforming driver as a shot across the bows of the field :D!

    That wouldn't surprise me at all, followed by everyone else getting tested and being clean........followed by 280 yard drives all round :D

    Its all very messy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭Webbs


    Rick Sheils was doing club comparison tests there a couple of months ago, taking sample drivers from the different manufacturers over the last 5-6 years to see if there really was any significant movement in the club technology over that time.

    I think that, from memory, the Titleist & Ping clubs showed small but relatively negligible changes, Cobra had wacky results, & TM showed more noticeable changes when they introduced the low forward CG clubs such as the SLDR & R15. But even at that, the numbers weren't close to the claims by the manufacturers.

    I sent him a message asking if, given its a topical subject, he could get hold of a sample of golf balls covering the last 20 years say, and perform a similar comparison test, to see if there is any significant difference in performance based on the changes in ball tech. It would be a small sampling I know, but would be interested to see his numbers.

    He never replied to the message, so I guess its not interesting enough.

    Might try message Crossfield too & see if he bites & sticks a vid up on his Youtube Channel on it

    There is this video done comparing Taylormade balls from 1999 to 2017 in their test they saw a difference of more than 20yds with the driver. Not the most scientific of test but I was surprised it made that much difference

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=qTvD9PePjgQ


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭stockdam


    Length of the tee is a great advantage if you hit the fairway. I don’t see why the longer players should be penalised.

    For amateurs it’s more fun hitting the ball long. I now can hit the ball 20 to 30 yards further than I did playing with old persimmon drivers etc. I remember hitting 4 iron as 2nd shots whereas now i’ll use a 7 or 8 on the same hole.

    I guess it has pros and cons. I used to practice a lot more as it was much harder to hit the ball straight. I also tended to concentrate more. Maybe that’s why my scoring hasn’t really improved. I am longer off the tee but not as good a striker of the ball.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Insecurity Guard


    stockdam wrote: »
    I don’t see why the longer players should be penalised.

    If everyone hit the ball a bit less far, there would be no penalty for long hitters - they would still be the longest and gain the advantages that brings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭stockdam


    stockdam wrote: »
    I don’t see why the longer players should be penalised.

    If everyone hit the ball a bit less far, there would be no penalty for long hitters - they would still be the longest and gain the advantages that brings.
    Yes as long as it's proportional.
    The big problem is maybe that it may reduce the fun and that may drive people away. In a way I don't want to go back to hitting 240 yard drives with a 5 wood as a second shot to long par 4s.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Insecurity Guard


    stockdam wrote: »
    ...I don't want to go back to hitting 240 yard drives with a 5 wood as a second shot to long par 4s.

    Agreed! I think any adjustments need only apply at the professional level. They are the guys for whom previously great courses are now too short.


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


    2018 Distance Report below. The up and comers (web.com) continue to bomb it past the PGA folks.

    https://twitter.com/RandA/status/1090248488753995777


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,321 ✭✭✭death1234567


    I think you can see the "Trackman" generation slowly coming through on the WEB.com tour. Give it another 10 years and 300 yards will be the minimum you have to drive it to be on tour unless you are truely exceptional at some other aspect of the game, e.g. putting.

    I think the powers that be should try to look at changing the ball so that its doesn't fly as far for the monster hitters but doesn't have as much impact for those with a < 100 mph swing speed. Either that or regulate shafts more stringently as the tour pros aren't using the same shafts as the average joe.


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


    I think a contributing factor to the 'ball' going too far is the COR restriction.

    With that speed limiting factor long established in Drivers, the manufacturers, looking to market their clubs to amateurs have instead focused on increasing forgiveness of the club heads.

    As a direct consequence of increasingly forgiving drivers, it allows for more pro players with their skillful, repetitive techniques to swing much faster with incredible accuracy than with a technologically less forgiving driver head. Merge the reliably repetitive technique which helps optimize ball flight and launch with increasing athleticism and trackman feedback and the ball is inevitably propelled further with high accuracy.

    Another factor is with the irons. We don't truly know what loft's the top players use. So when we see a pro hitting a 6 iron 200 yards, they may well have a loft setting between a 4 and 5 iron. At their swing speeds this may be a difference of 20 yards of carry. There are no rules as far as I'm aware which state that a 6 iron must have a loft between 36 and 40 degrees. Viewers are astonished that they hit the '6' that far and conclude that it must surely be the ball. The reality is a Ping 7 iron might have 33 degrees whereas a Callaway Apex has 30.

    In the 60s/70s, a 9 iron loft was 48 degrees. Today it is between 40 and 44, which would have been a 7 iron back then.
    https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/news-and-events/general-news/2015/november/if-you-ask-someone-what-club-they-hit-youre-either-vain-an-idiot-or-both/

    So you have that generation looking at today's distances and they conclude that it's the ball which shoulders the cause of that increase.


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


    valoren wrote: »
    I think a contributing factor to the 'ball' going too far is the COR restriction.

    With that speed limiting factor long established in Drivers, the manufacturers, looking to market their clubs to amateurs have instead focused on increasing forgiveness of the club heads.

    As a direct consequence of increasingly forgiving drivers, it allows for more pro players with their skillful, repetitive techniques to swing much faster with incredible accuracy than with a technologically less forgiving driver head. Merge the reliably repetitive technique which helps optimize ball flight and launch with increasing athleticism and trackman feedback and the ball is inevitably propelled further with high accuracy.

    Another factor is with the irons. We don't truly know what loft's the top players use. So when we see a pro hitting a 6 iron 200 yards, they may well have a loft setting between a 4 and 5 iron. At their swing speeds this may be a difference of 20 yards of carry. There are no rules as far as I'm aware which state that a 6 iron must have a loft between 36 and 40 degrees. Viewers are astonished that they hit the '6' that far and conclude that it must surely be the ball. The reality is a Ping 7 iron might have 33 degrees whereas a Callaway Apex has 30.

    In the 60s/70s, a 9 iron loft was 48 degrees. Today it is between 40 and 44, which would have been a 7 iron back then.
    https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/news-and-events/general-news/2015/november/if-you-ask-someone-what-club-they-hit-youre-either-vain-an-idiot-or-both/

    So you have that generation looking at today's distances and they conclude that it's the ball which shoulders the cause of that increase.

    No one cares how far they hit their irons as, like you say, no one knows what lofts/lengths etc they are using.
    But the reality is that at the top end of the scale, i.e. the driver, the ball is going miles. This negates any different in lofts etc of irons as pretty much everyone is tailoring their driver to go as far as possible.

    Remove 20% of the dimples on the ball and everyone is impacted by the same ratio. The long guys are still long and the short guys are still short, but at least the courses dont have to be 8,000 yards long and cost a fortune to maintain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,034 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    Only skimmed this thread so not sure if mentioned.

    But a lot of players do workouts and hit gym today. A lot of top golfers in Good shape. They may not be super fit, but a lot work on core and excerises to increase club head speed.

    Technology has played a part but most top players today do look after themselves much better now too


Advertisement