Golf equipment & the its effect on the pro game

PRAF

Watching the Open, and lots of other tournaments, it is quite amazing to see how far the top pros are hitting it these days. Even guys like Luke Donald and GMAC (neither known as big hitters) are more than capable of cranking out 300+ yard drives. Meanwhile, guys like Adam Scott, Tiger, Bubba, etc. can play the major tournaments without using their drivers if they want to. I'm regularly seeing 200 yard 7 irons, wedges going 160 yards, etc. It's crazy!

When I saw Adam Scott hit a 4-iron 280+ yards, I began wondering whether golf equipment needs to be reined back a little. Probably the easiest way to do so, is to put limits on the golf ball itself. The other option will be to start have 8,000 yard courses and I'm not sure that's the right answer.

slave1

It's a shortcoming to think this is all equipment related, the wind was well up for those shots yesterday and modern fitness contributes also.
Tiger was the main focus point on not using the driver and was well behind his playing parterns in distance throughout the tournament. It was a links course!

death1234567

I think we are at the limit of what techology can do. The top pro's now are hitting a golf ball about as far as its possible to hit. The manufacturers will always claim new technological improvements but I can't see the game becoming any longer.

PRAF

slave1 wrote: »

It's a shortcoming to think this is all equipment related, the wind was well up for those shots yesterday and modern fitness contributes also.
Tiger was the main focus point on not using the driver and was well behind his playing parterns in distance throughout the tournament. It was a links course!

Tiger was the extreme, however, I watched a good bit of Harrington and McIlroy on Saturday and they seemed to be hitting a lot of irons or 3-woods and hybrids off the tee.

Maybe the problem is worse on links courses because they get so much run on the fairways. However, I'd really love to see the top pros being really tested by having to hit driver on at least half of the par 4s and 5s they face. Driving is a real art and it's a shame that we saw so little of it this weekend.

I'm also a bit jealous when I see these top pros hitting their 7 irons 200+ yards!

thewobbler

death1234567 wrote: »

I think we are at the limit of what techology can do. The top pro's now are hitting a golf ball about as far as its possible to hit. The manufacturers will always claim new technological improvements but I can't see the game becoming any longer.

haha, mad. Give Callaway or Taylormade carte blanche to make a new club without the rulemakers looking down on them, and every pro would be hitting 400 yards. They're working within boundaries at present.

Anyway, the rulemakers need to get stricter again. 7,000 yard courses take considerably more cash to maintain than 6,000 yards courses, which means they inevitably must cost more to play, and that's the biggest issue I have.

death1234567

thewobbler wrote: »

They're working within boundaries at present.

I know, and those boudaries are not likely to change any time soon IMO, Certainly not to allow manufacturers make clubs that are even longer.

BoardsMember

death1234567 wrote: »

I think we are at the limit of what techology can do. The top pro's now are hitting a golf ball about as far as its possible to hit. The manufacturers will always claim new technological improvements but I can't see the game becoming any longer.

That's a little naive to say. Doesn't every generation think this, in all types of environments & activities. There's every reason to think that, for instance, technological advancements will lead to a gold ball traveling further, straighter, with more/less spin etc.

The challenge is for the governing bodies to put some sort of restrictions on the development. Particularly with regard to the golf ball. There was talk of introducing tournament golf balls, and these balls would conform to whatever technical restrictions applied for Pro tournaments. This would seem to make sense, something that is easy to implement, doesn't jeopardise the vested interests as much as something more draconian might do.

They will have to do something, otherwise they will have to continually lengthen courses, for the Pros in particular. When you consider this approach it seems pretty daft: do we stop the ball going as far, or do we lengthen the courser. The right answer is pretty simple, it's just a question of how best to go about it.

PRAF

thewobbler wrote: »

Anyway, the rulemakers need to get stricter again. 7,000 yard courses take considerably more cash to maintain than 6,000 yards courses, which means they inevitably must cost more to play, and that's the biggest issue I have.

Didn't think of that angle but I think you are right. Bigger courses need more staff and more maintenance. That is not the answer.

The other way courses can protect themselves is by more bunkering, more hazards, faster greens and deeper rough. However, all of that leads to slower play which is also a big problem in the game.

BoardsMember

PRAF wrote: »

Didn't think of that angle but I think you are right. Bigger courses need more staff and more maintenance. That is not the answer.

The other way courses can protect themselves is by more bunkering, more hazards, faster greens and deeper rough. However, all of that leads to slower play which is also a big problem in the game.

The golf ball....that's what's being hit, that's what's going too far. It's the obvious thing to change. You dont have to change perfectly good courses, just stop the ball going so far. Simples. The thought of having to make alterations to all the hundreds of courses, rather than just changing the ball..the mind boggles.

PRAF

BoardsMember wrote: »

The golf ball....that's what's being hit, that's what's going too far. It's the obvious thing to change. You dont have to change perfectly good courses, just stop the ball going so far. Simples. The thought of having to make alterations to all the hundreds of courses, rather than just changing the ball..the mind boggles.

Yeah, I agree with you. If we all accept that hitting 350 yard drives and 280 yard 4-irons is a problem then you eventually need to start looking at options to fix that. When you explore all of the options (longer courses, more difficult courses, limiting the clubmakers, etc.) I think changing the ball is the least worst option.

I just hope they don't change it for us hackers! I don't want to see my poorly hit 6-iron going any less thank you very much

mikeunt

BoardsMember wrote: »

technological advancements will lead to a gold ball traveling further, straighter, with more/less spin etc.

sorry but why would the golf ball have to be gold
surely the colour wouldnt make any difference

kermitpwee

PRAF wrote: »

However, I'd really love to see the top pros being really tested by having to hit driver on at least half of the par 4s and 5s they face. Driving is a real art and it's a shame that we saw so little of it this weekend.

I'm also a bit jealous when I see these top pros hitting their 7 irons 200+ yards!

The reason they didn't hit drivers is because the course is so tight off the tee. The landing areas are extremely tight, I am just back from the open and the Tv doesn't give the correct perspective at all. On tv the fairwyas look twice as wide as they are in reality, the first hole the par 3 is very tight yet on tv looks like a simple hole with a big green. Also the the rise and fall of the land and the contours of the greens are in no way accurately depicted on tv.

mike12

The problem at the weekend was there were loads of Hazards in at 250 to 300 yards so they all hit irons to be short of them. Think Scott's 4 iron was down wind and flew about 240 and ran 40 so not really crazy distance wise as all the pros would be hitting 4 iron around 220. A lot of the distances we are hearing are where the pros are cutting corners and getting huge run on rock solid fairways. When courses are soft u don't see many drives over 300 yards. Maybe water courses in the 250 to 300 yards area so they get no run off the tee.
Mike

cson

Whats wrong with under par golf? I love watching a shoot out.

Lengthening courses is not the answer and neither is limiting equipment. Faldo mentioned it that if he was designing a course he'd place the bunkers at 250/260 yards so you'd have to hit a driver to get over them. I think thats the way to go; hazards at varying distances from the tee so that pros have to think about where to hit it and don't get to do a Tiger of smashing an iron off every tee [and look how well that turned out for him].

TheDoc

While people are quick to point out that its not down to technology but the players, thats no entirely true. I in fairness wouldn't have thought so until yesterday.

Took my new driver out for a spin, first time using it in our Sunday comp and I'd say on avg going by the GPS I was using to measure, I was hitting about 290 in pretty windy conditions. My old driver would probably top out at about 270 and I was comfy with that big time. I definitly think there is more yardage out of this driver after I get more comfortable with it.

At the same time, the way the pros utilise their swings and transitions of power in their swings, adds to it aswell.

It cannot be denied technology and equipment is the main factor due to the increase in distance, and spin ( overlooked) but there is of course credit due to the pros who have simply put a much more powerful and efficent swing.

Then again if we could all have "swing technicians" to make our swing second nature by working with us for 3 hours 4-5 days a week, I'm sure we would all be hititng the same length

Creasy_bear

From another site.

"those claiming "fitness," have any of you actually played with a persimmon driver and a wound balata ball?

In summary:

During the 14 years between the end of the persimmon age (1980) and just prior to the introduction of Titanium woods (and before the ProV1 ball), the increase in the median player's driving distance was 3.7 yards.

In the following 9 years (2003 after Ti and molded balls came into wide use) the median increased by 26 yards.

In the 9 years since, there has been almost no increase in distance (0.9 yards between 2003 and current 2012 numbers), even with the explosion of fitness, TPI, yoga, the travelling fitness van to tour stops, etc".

Basically, driving distance on the pga tour has not improved in the last 9 years

kermitpwee

The amazing thing is the winning score at The Open was -7. The course still wins because it is a classic design regardless of how far you can hit it, its not all about length ya know!

Creasy_bear

BoardsMember wrote: »

The golf ball....that's what's being hit, that's what's going too far. It's the obvious thing to change. You dont have to change perfectly good courses, just stop the ball going so far. Simples. The thought of having to make alterations to all the hundreds of courses, rather than just changing the ball..the mind boggles.

Slowing down the ball will not make the big hitters short. It will make them shorter relative to their old drives. Bubba would still be 50 yards outside of Donald.

TheDoc

kermitpwee wrote: »

The amazing thing is the winning score at The Open was -7. The course still wins because it is a classic design regardless of how far you can hit it, its not all about length ya know!

Nicklaus made a very good point, that with the golf industry dipping, and golf clubs around the world in financial difficulty, curbing technology could revive the dying clubs.

The point he was making, is that to effectively have a championship course, you need to year on years spent millions to make the course longer to deal with longer drivers. To make the greens difficult to deal with the high spin rate, or insert fairway hazards to try force players to hit shorter.

This money for investment is not available for most, and if technology was curbed, then instead of there being roughly 80 or less Championship courses in America, its possible to have over 2000 championship courses.

It was a good point very well made, simply put, clubs dont have the money to keep upgrading their courses to challenge the improvements technology is bringing.

I think its accepted at the top level that the advances in technology are the main reason for improvement in distance and spin control, not the players.

cson

Again I make the point; what's wrong with under par golf? Seriously? Do we have to have courses set up so that shooting par is difficult? You don't need to have every tournament like the USGA set up the US Open where a winning score of par is the target.

thewobbler

cson wrote: »

Again I make the point; what's wrong with under par golf? Seriously? Do we have to have courses set up so that shooting par is difficult? You don't need to have every tournament like the USGA set up the US Open where a winning score of par is the target.

What's wrong is that it fundamentally changes golf.

Clubs of par 72 and short yardages could conceivably end up with a standard scratch closer to 60 - unless they narrow their fairways, grow their rough and add (and maintain) lots of bunkers. Courses with room will turn their par 4s into 450+ across the board. Call it ego, call it protection, call it a sense of fair play, but very few courses won't take corrective action.

I'm a normal club golfer, I'd rather hit the ball 260 yards and get away with minor mistakes than hit it 300 and get frustrated with continual punishment.

Call me old fashioned but I love a tactical 320 yard par 4. I also love going through every club in my bag on a round.

BoardsMember

Creasy_bear wrote: »

Slowing down the ball will not make the big hitters short. It will make them shorter relative to their old drives. Bubba would still be 50 yards outside of Donald.

Of course the longer hitters would remain longer than the average or shorter hitters. But they would be shorter. I'm not sure you have a point beyond that, which would seem pretty obvious. Unless I missed something

TheDoc

thewobbler wrote: »

What's wrong is that it fundamentally changes golf.

Clubs of par 72 and short yardages could conceivably end up with a standard scratch closer to 60 - unless they narrow their fairways, grow their rough and add (and maintain) lots of bunkers. Courses with room will turn their par 4s into 450+ across the board. Call it ego, call it protection, call it a sense of fair play, but very few courses won't take corrective action.

I'm a normal club golfer, I'd rather hit the ball 260 yards and get away with minor mistakes than hit it 300 and get frustrated with continual punishment.

Call me old fashioned but I love a tactical 320 yard par 4. I also love going through every club in my bag on a round.

There is a gross over estimation I think on most peoples part on what length they hit their driver. Some relatively short Par 4's on my course. A good drive and your never anything more then an 8 iron for me.

But they are beautifully designed, cleverly dashed with danger and tricky greens. I think delicate, tricky greens seem more difficult for us guys then longer holes.

Its evident every single time there is a club match or we host something. We had the senior cup or junior cup or something in our place this year and in qualfying one lad from Portmarnock was the only guy to shoot sub 80, and these are guys between like 4-7 handicapps or something.

Youd expect most to be hitting a driver and scoring iron to most greens, but sure just goes to show.

blue note

kermitpwee wrote: »

The amazing thing is the winning score at The Open was -7. The course still wins because it is a classic design regardless of how far you can hit it, its not all about length ya know!

Didn't they lengthen it and change it from a par 72 to a par 70? So on the same course a few years back that would have been a -15.

Dtoffee

TheDoc wrote: »

We had the senior cup or junior cup or something in our place this year and in qualfying one lad from Portmarnock was the only guy to shoot sub 80, and these are guys between like 4-7 handicapps or something.

There is the reality, a good golf course design will put the emphaisis on skill and ability. A bad course will reward brute strength and power without any thought. I blame the clubs themselves as they are the ones in charge, they pay the big bucks to some designer for his advice and over the years I have seen many a good course turned into a monster without justification and at huge costs. How many 100 yard par 3s are there out there ...... its getting to the stage where 200 yards is the norm and that is a joke. Coolattin has two of the best short par 3 holes out there and they are great, so it can be done.

Hitting the ball 350 yards is fantastic, good on those that can but its totally useless on a tight dogleg or a well constructed hole with bunkers, water and trees in play. So IMHO its our own clubs that should take control of the situation and not be crying to the rule makers to restrict technology in order to solve their course issues.

ps
I also think there is an element of bull**** about the whole thing, I know some golfers who refuse to play short courses or 9 holes courses ..... referring to them as 'hen-runs'. The reality is that these hen-runs cause them problems and expose their lack of short game skills, they even brush off the course record as not a true reflection because no good golfer plays there D'OH.

GreeBo

Dtoffee wrote: »

There is the reality, a good golf course design will put the emphaisis on skill and ability. A bad course will reward brute strength and power without any thought. I blame the clubs themselves as they are the ones in charge, they pay the big bucks to some designer for his advice and over the years I have seen many a good course turned into a monster without justification and at huge costs. How many 100 yard par 3s are there out there ...... its getting to the stage where 200 yards is the norm and that is a joke. Coolattin has two of the best short par 3 holes out there and they are great, so it can be done.

Hitting the ball 350 yards is fantastic, good on those that can but its totally useless on a tight dogleg or a well constructed hole with bunkers, water and trees in play. So IMHO its our own clubs that should take control of the situation and not be crying to the rule makers to restrict technology in order to solve their course issues.

ps
I also think there is an element of bull**** about the whole thing, I know some golfers who refuse to play short courses or 9 holes courses ..... referring to them as 'hen-runs'. The reality is that these hen-runs cause them problems and expose their lack of short game skills, they even brush off the course record as not a true reflection because no good golfer plays there D'OH.

I do think a balance is required though. There are some course where its all irons off the tee and then an iron to the green. I think that can hide the fact that someone is unable to hit a driver or 3 wood well.
A balance is what its all about, you need to be able to hit all the shots and the course needs to test them all.

BoardsMember

GreeBo wrote: »

I do think a balance is required though. There are some course where its all irons off the tee and then an iron to the green. I think that can hide the fact that someone is unable to hit a driver or 3 wood well.
A balance is what its all about, you need to be able to hit all the shots and the course needs to test them all.

Hey, less of the balanced argument please, how will we end up with a meandering troll filled 17 page thread if you post something like that.

TheDoc

Dtoffee wrote: »

There is the reality, a good golf course design will put the emphaisis on skill and ability. A bad course will reward brute strength and power without any thought. I blame the clubs themselves as they are the ones in charge, they pay the big bucks to some designer for his advice and over the years I have seen many a good course turned into a monster without justification and at huge costs. How many 100 yard par 3s are there out there ...... its getting to the stage where 200 yards is the norm and that is a joke. Coolattin has two of the best short par 3 holes out there and they are great, so it can be done.

Hitting the ball 350 yards is fantastic, good on those that can but its totally useless on a tight dogleg or a well constructed hole with bunkers, water and trees in play. So IMHO its our own clubs that should take control of the situation and not be crying to the rule makers to restrict technology in order to solve their course issues.

ps
I also think there is an element of bull**** about the whole thing, I know some golfers who refuse to play short courses or 9 holes courses ..... referring to them as 'hen-runs'. The reality is that these hen-runs cause them problems and expose their lack of short game skills, they even brush off the course record as not a true reflection because no good golfer plays there D'OH.

Some good points, I know the only 9 hole course I know is Rush ( or is it Lusk?) and have to say remember it being VERY short. Played it in a match for Metropolitan years back and remember driving the first green, a par 4. It is a shockingly short course, but at the same time challenging enough and relatively enjoyable.

So there is definitely some valid points to people not liking short courses, although personally I would label them anything other then " a short course" and it wouldn't exactly deter me from playing.

I remember driving a couple of par 4 greens that day, and my opponent did something similar. Everything was off the tee and a short iron into the greens. Actually been meaning to go back and play it again, was enjoyable from what I remember

TheDoc

GreeBo wrote: »

I do think a balance is required though. There are some course where its all irons off the tee and then an iron to the green. I think that can hide the fact that someone is unable to hit a driver or 3 wood well.
A balance is what its all about, you need to be able to hit all the shots and the course needs to test them all.

I don't think I've hit an iron off the tee to a par 4 or 5. On my course anyway. I always wondered when people say they hit irons, is it cause their woods put them in trouble or cause they simply cant hit them?

Of the top of my head I take a wood over a driver

5th - Par 5 dog leg left. 3 wood leaves me posied to lay up with a short iron and then try get up and down birdie, worst case scenario pay.
7th - Par 4, fairway narrows with cover behind a massive tree and lake to the left, OB on the right, 3 wood leaves me safe, but another wood into the green.
18th - This is a recent change, new driver looks like it will reach water which is very high risk.

Couldn't for the life of me ever see myself hitting a 4 iron of a tee for a par 4 or 5. Not sure on the exact distance but I'd say my 4 iron is in and around the 200-210 mark, my 5 wood adds another maybe 10-15 depending and my 3 wood longer again.


EDIT* I lie, I take a five iron from the first tee. Dog leg left and a 5 iron down the left side or drawing around the corner leaves me a wedge into the green. So it makes sense to take an iron

GreeBo

TheDoc wrote: »

I don't think I've hit an iron off the tee to a par 4 or 5. On my course anyway. I always wondered when people say they hit irons, is it cause their woods put them in trouble or cause they simply cant hit them?

Of the top of my head I take a wood over a driver

5th - Par 5 dog leg left. 3 wood leaves me posied to lay up with a short iron and then try get up and down birdie, worst case scenario pay.
7th - Par 4, fairway narrows with cover behind a massive tree and lake to the left, OB on the right, 3 wood leaves me safe, but another wood into the green.
18th - This is a recent change, new driver looks like it will reach water which is very high risk.

Couldn't for the life of me ever see myself hitting a 4 iron of a tee for a par 4 or 5. Not sure on the exact distance but I'd say my 4 iron is in and around the 200-210 mark, my 5 wood adds another maybe 10-15 depending and my 3 wood longer again.


EDIT* I lie, I take a five iron from the first tee. Dog leg left and a 5 iron down the left side or drawing around the corner leaves me a wedge into the green. So it makes sense to take an iron

I hit an iron off the tee when the benefits of being a bit closer with the driver are out weighed by the negatives if I dont hit a perfect drive. (Blocked out, OB, in hazard, deep rough etc)
I'd rather be "guaranteed" a 3i and an 8i than hope for a driver and a wedge.
Or to put it another way, the difference in accuracy between my 8i and wedge is far less than between my driver and my 3i, the sums just dont add up.

stringy

only 8 players finished under par at the weekend, so the benefit of hitting 7 irons 200 yards, wasn't really an issue or a benefit at all.

however I do think they should try do something to reduce the distance the ball goes, primarily due to the fact that top courses cannot extend their length, and are being shunned for longer courses.

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

I hit an iron off the tee when the benefits of being a bit closer with the driver are out weighed by the negatives if I dont hit a perfect drive. (Blocked out, OB, in hazard, deep rough etc)
I'd rather be "guaranteed" a 3i and an 8i than hope for a driver and a wedge.
Or to put it another way, the difference in accuracy between my 8i and wedge is far less than between my driver and my 3i, the sums just dont add up.

I hit a 3 or 5 wood on 2/3 par 4s. The driver would be too long on one hole (leave me in trees) and on the other I'm prone to a slice which would leave me in a drain on the other.

I use irons on 2 of the par 5s. I still comfortably reach them in 3. On the 18th A bad drive will put me in trees or OOB and on the 2nd a bad drive could be a lost ball or, slightly less bad, a great drive will leave me a fairway wood to the green (if I'm short with it I'm in a drain, left in a bunker, right in the drain, long and I could be in trees behind the green). I don't need the temptation of getting there in 2!

Dtoffee

blue note wrote: »

I hit a 3 or 5 wood on 2/3 par 4s. The driver would be too long on one hole (leave me in trees) and on the other I'm prone to a slice which would leave me in a drain on the other.

I use irons on 2 of the par 5s. I still comfortably reach them in 3. On the 18th A bad drive will put me in trees or OOB and on the 2nd a bad drive could be a lost ball or, slightly less bad, a great drive will leave me a fairway wood to the green (if I'm short with it I'm in a drain, left in a bunker, right in the drain, long and I could be in trees behind the green). I don't need the temptation of getting there in 2!

They are two examples of good course management and promoting accuracy over distance ..... in both cases the course design wins out and the golfer is forced top think. I argee a balance is required, but if every course extends just because the latest version of Rocketballz comes out then it becomes boring and just a long drive contest. In golf, the challenge should always be decision making and shot making .... risk and reward, thats why the best courses are the ones that leave you feeling that you will come back and burn it up (but you rarely do).

The_Architect

Good topic and I believe you are completely correct. The ball should be reined in.

BoardsMember

stringy wrote: »

only 8 players finished under par at the weekend, so the benefit of hitting 7 irons 200 yards, wasn't really an issue or a benefit at all.

:eek::eek:

Martin567

cson wrote: »

Whats wrong with under par golf? I love watching a shoot out.

Lengthening courses is not the answer and neither is limiting equipment. Faldo mentioned it that if he was designing a course he'd place the bunkers at 250/260 yards so you'd have to hit a driver to get over them. I think thats the way to go; hazards at varying distances from the tee so that pros have to think about where to hit it and don't get to do a Tiger of smashing an iron off every tee [and look how well that turned out for him].

Without reading or hearing what Faldo might have said, I know you've got less than half the story. You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be any bunkers near the fairway after 250/260 yards. A driver is the ultimate risk and reward club. Hit it well and you've got the easiest approach to the green. Hit it poorly and you're in trouble. Therefore the most trouble has to be around the distance that these guys will be hitting their driver. Otherwise everyone will just get the driver out, hit it over all the trouble and the entire event becomes a pitch & putt contest. All these bunkers at 250/260 yards would become redundant and the pros wouldn't have to think at all about what to hit.

That's why Lytham (and the other great links) are such brilliant courses. It's a game of strategy all the way around rather than just crash, bang, wallop. As Els & Scott showed, if you were hitting the driver well enough, you would reap the rewards. If you weren't confident enough in the driver, then you would have a much more difficult second shot.

The problem with a "shoot-out" as you call it is that it is far less likely that the best player will win. If everyone just gives it a lash with the driver and has no fear of getting into any trouble, the guy who's really hitting it well off the tee is being unfairly penalised. Majors are supposed to be the ultimate test in golf and the recent US & British Opens were just that. If they were to turn into "shoot-outs", they would quickly lose their identities and would eventually cease to be as important as they currently are.

With all the talk of equipment, it's amazing that it's the older courses which have stood up best to the challenge. Courses opened only 20-30 years ago have struggled to cope while those 100 years old or more remain as difficult as ever.

thewobbler

Martin567 wrote: »

With all the talk of equipment, it's amazing that it's the older courses which have stood up best to the challenge. Courses opened only 20-30 years ago have struggled to cope while those 100 years old or more remain as difficult as ever.

I love a sweeping generalisation.

St Andrews and Turnberry are little more than pitch and putt courses when the wind is down.

Augusta has spent the last 20 years adding 50 yards a year somewhere, anywhere.

All the great American courses likewise.

On the British links, they grow rough to a foot high to protect, and turn holes that were designed as par 5s into par 4s.


If the Grove or Celtic Manor was to be awarded the Open, you can guarantee they'd do likewise.

GreeBo

Links courses are designed to be played in windy conditions.no wind on links is the equivalent if having ball in hand at Augusta.it massively impacts the scores.

kermitpwee

blue note wrote: »

Didn't they lengthen it and change it from a par 72 to a par 70? So on the same course a few years back that would have been a -15.

They lengthened it 220 yards and it was a par 71 brought to par 70 so by your calculations that would make it -11. The course stills wins imo

MisterAnarchy

Creasy_bear wrote: »

Basically, driving distance on the pga tour has not improved in the last 9 years

Nonsense,every one knows that every year the new drivers released for 3-4 hundred euro hit the ball 20 yards further than the previous years models,its common knowledge,all the manufacturers are saying it .
Anyone worth his salt should be driving the ball over 400 yards.:p

I played some golf with some younger golfers last week and they were trying to convince me that the new drivers go 30 yards further than last years models .
They were convinced of it .

I have an old XR-05 driver,it was released in 2004 and it is the longest driver I have ever hit,it is longer than anything currently on the market.
It is illegal now ,the COR is slightly too high but it just goes to show that all the marketing claims are nonsense.

BoardsMember

So you were going great with your point

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I have an old XR-05 driver,it was released in 2004 and it is the longest driver I have ever hit,it is longer than anything currently on the market.

....until......

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

It is illegal now ,the COR is slightly too high

..and so I'm not really sure its valid to continue...

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

but it just goes to show that all the marketing claims are nonsense.

:D:D

The_Architect

The drivers don't hit the ball that much further in recent years - mainly marketing - but over a longer period of time they have definitely made a distance difference and they are much, much, more forgiving for the weaker golfer who doesn't hit it out of the sweet spot everytime. So they have a profound effect.

The ball has had a bigger effect. There have been about 4 step jumps in increased distance in the last 150 years, the last being the introduction of the Pro-V1. But it's not just distance. It's increased spin as well that wreaks havoc with courses, their design, their length and ultimately their cost.

Almaviva

GreeBo wrote: »

Links courses are designed to be played in windy conditions.no wind on links is the equivalent if having ball in hand at Augusta.it massively impacts the scores.

Now thats going a bit too far. Yes the British Isles generally have a bit of wind, and the designers of old would have had the prevailing direction in mind when laying them out, but really it is just a case of no wind easier cours, wind, more difficult course. Scores were higher in the past and it is the current level of athleticism, equipment, and high level of talent participating in majors that is making some of the old courses look a little humiliated.

The mistake was the authorities not forseeing the advances in equipment and drawing a line before they manufacturers got gear into players, but I'll concede that is easier said than done.
The moves over the last century were; the steel shaft, the balata ball then the ProV style, the timber wood to the steel wood, the small steel wood to the 460 steel would, and to lesser degrees, the carbon shaft and the peripheral weighted head which both improve the average rather than the peak.
To me, the ball does seem the way to go. A ball flying about 85% as long as the current one would be the simplest step. They are cheap consumables and automatically obsolete withing a couple of rounds unlike clubs which would be more complicated, upset manufacturers more, and make a lot of capital n the hands of the average golfer obsolete. The move would reign in the need for ever longer and more expensive real estate to play the game, and keep older courses (both the St Andrews etc, and the average members course) playing with the character that was their tradition for a hundred years or more.
This would leave all the equipment worth anything still legal (except those damned long putters, but thats another story), and the thrust of manufacturers club development and marketing untouched. Ball makers would be given a boost of everyone buying new balls, and an opportunity for them to out market the opposition competing for who has the best 'new' ball. Similar to the pretty painless transition we made from the 1.62 to 1.68 ball. Everyone wins.

GreeBo

Almaviva wrote: »

Now thats going a bit too far. Yes the British Isles generally have a bit of wind, and the designers of old would have had the prevailing direction in mind when laying them out, but really it is just a case of no wind easier cours, wind, more difficult course. Scores were higher in the past and it is the current level of athleticism, equipment, and high level of talent participating in majors that is making some of the old courses look a little humiliated.

The mistake was the authorities not forseeing the advances in equipment and drawing a line before they manufacturers got gear into players, but I'll concede that is easier said than done.
The moves over the last century were; the steel shaft, the balata ball then the ProV style, the timber wood to the steel wood, the small steel wood to the 460 steel would, and to lesser degrees, the carbon shaft and the peripheral weighted head which both improve the average rather than the peak.
To me, the ball does seem the way to go. A ball flying about 85% as long as the current one would be the simplest step. They are cheap consumables and automatically obsolete withing a couple of rounds unlike clubs which would be more complicated, upset manufacturers more, and make a lot of capital n the hands of the average golfer obsolete. The move would reign in the need for ever longer and more expensive real estate to play the game, and keep older courses (both the St Andrews etc, and the average members course) playing with the character that was their tradition for a hundred years or more.
This would leave all the equipment worth anything still legal (except those damned long putters, but thats another story), and the thrust of manufacturers club development and marketing untouched. Ball makers would be given a boost of everyone buying new balls, and an opportunity for them to out market the opposition competing for who has the best 'new' ball. Similar to the pretty painless transition we made from the 1.62 to 1.68 ball. Everyone wins.

I'm not talking about all old courses, purely links courses, which I think most people would agree are designed with wind in mind?

I'm with you on the ball being the best target, but they would have to come up with some "standard" way of reducing the distance.
e.g minimum weight, max dimples, size
because they cant just set a maximum distance a ball can travel (with Iron Byron type machine) as that would kill the ball industry.

The_Architect

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not talking about all old courses, purely links courses, which I think most people would agree are designed with wind in mind?

I'm with you on the ball being the best target, but they would have to come up with some "standard" way of reducing the distance.
e.g minimum weight, max dimples, size
because they cant just set a maximum distance a ball can travel (with Iron Byron type machine) as that would kill the ball industry.

That should be easy. There are a number of prototypes already out there, one called the e-ball.

blue note

I think it's a much more interesting discussion with amateurs and our courses. We definitely hit it consistently further now and if your course hasn't been upgraded fairly recently, might be a little out of date. The 4th in tramore used to be a great hole - two decent carries required to get to the green. But in the few years before our course overhaul loads were long enough to cut to corner and make it a drive and a pitch. There are plenty of other examples too, but it was a good course that needed upgrades to stay relevant. I blame equipment for that.

GreeBo

The_Architect wrote: »

That should be easy. There are a number of prototypes already out there, one called the e-ball.

I think make it lighter or bigger is a better way as I really dont like the idea of a ball that has a pre-set maximum distance.
It removes the risk/reward of "going for one" and reduces everyone to the same distance. The guys who hit it long will drop drivers and just carry 3-woods and extra wedges or something.
Just make it harder to hit it more than 300 Yrds and then the game is saved for everyone and the guys who swing really hard still get a benefit.

Almaviva

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not talking about all old courses, purely links courses, which I think most people would agree are designed with wind in mind?

I'm with you on the ball being the best target, but they would have to come up with some "standard" way of reducing the distance.
e.g minimum weight, max dimples, size
because they cant just set a maximum distance a ball can travel (with Iron Byron type machine) as that would kill the ball industry.

I would still not agree that courses were designed with wind in mind. 'Designed' is hardly even the world for the very old courses. They simply eveolved or at a stretch were 'laid out', without any great planning or thought (you simply 'played out', turned, and 'played back'). Designed with wind in mind almost suggests 'no wind stopped play'.

I guess science could quite easily come up with a ball that would limit the distance we all hit it by whatever percentage we want. Maximum launch velocity to a give clubhead speed with a given clubhead, or coefficient of restitution (similar to that used to limit the spring off a driver face) should not tax the law maker's science boffins too much. Modifications to ball materails would easily cope with the change, and prefereable to any changes in size in my view (although the change from 1.62 to 1.68 did pass of without trauma, I dont think I would like to see the ball size increase again). Bigger would change the characteristics of hitting a ball off the fairway and, if the change were too big, also of putting.

BigChap1759

Creasy_bear wrote: »

Slowing down the ball will not make the big hitters short. It will make them shorter relative to their old drives. Bubba would still be 50 yards outside of Donald.

That is true but the reason for doing it would be to stop the need to continually lengthen golf courses, especially open courses where there is very little room left in a lot of cases.