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

RoadRunner

Interesting to get some figures on this and some comments on this new 'drive' by some in the game.

ShriekingSheet

I say yes, with the caveat that it should be restricted on Tour only or in Pro golf only. The Amateur game should be left as is.

Would you maybe think of adding a poll option for that? As I think that's what a few people are suggesting.

Basically, the thinking is that absolutely nothing should be done to make the game more difficult for the average player, or general amateurs.

But for Tour golf, as an entertainment spectacle, something has definitely been lost since so many players now hit mid irons into the likes of 13 and 15 at Augusta. Removing that risk of hitting a very long iron or (God forbid) a wood off the deck definitely reduces the drama of the events, and probably cuts down the number of guys who genuinely have a chance to compete - again, less fun for the spectator.

Some of the old and most favorite courses have and will be extended to adjust, but they're running out of room. Playing new venues in the desert that are 8,000 yards long with zero strategy involved, or allowing tournaments to be routinely won with 26 under par are not good options.

Reduce the driving distance and bring the trouble back into play - not allowing guys to bomb over bunkers or dog legs that they used to have to work around. Bring back the risk reward of par 5s by making it a genuinely long hit for the second shot, if at all. This should mean that guys can actually falter if they're in the lead, and not just cruise home as they always seem to do.

dan_ep82

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://golfweek.com/2015/12/22/average-driving-distance-pga-tour-hasnt-changed-much-decade/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiK55DS6qLZAhWJJMAKHeqADXoQFjABegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw2QBovw09mSmjUFW-wwEq-P&ampcf=1


It hasn't changed much in ten years, don't understand what the big fuss is about.

I don't think length should be the sole defence of a course anyhow, plenty of other ways of keeping the course tough.

martinkop

I think the concern is more about the change in the last 2 years; https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html

68 lads averaging 300 yrds +

Russman

dan_ep82 wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://golfweek.com/2015/12/22/average-driving-distance-pga-tour-hasnt-changed-much-decade/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiK55DS6qLZAhWJJMAKHeqADXoQFjABegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw2QBovw09mSmjUFW-wwEq-P&ampcf=1


It hasn't changed much in ten years, don't understand what the big fuss is about.

I don't think length should be the sole defence of a course anyhow, plenty of other ways of keeping the course tough.

I think I've seen something in the last few days though that indicates the distance has started to creep up again in the last year or so. It might have been on Golfwrx, can't remember.

Its a tricky one, I'm totally against bifurcation, and yet the added distance is really only applicable to a tiny, tiny percentage of golfers worldwide.
Maybe reducing the head size of drivers back down to 320cc or something (for everyone) so its not so easy to hit the sweetspot when swinging out of your shoes ? I dunno.

I think on Sky sports I've seen Dennis Pugh say something along the lines of: you need to be swinging over 113mph to really get the benefit of the modern ball. Apparently there's an exponential jump once you get to that speed, and realistically, how many people (apart from on the internet) actually swing at that speed ?

Totally agree that there's not much fun in watching someone blast a drive 340yds over the trouble and still able to chip onto the green out of the rough.
Also I totally see the savings in terms of land needed for courses, additional cost of maintenance and water on longer bigger courses, longer rounds etc etc that reining in the ball might bring. Yet I'm not 100% convinced we need to change the rules because of 40/50 long hitters on tour.

If I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd say yes bring it back a little.

ShriekingSheet

dan_ep82 wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://golfweek.com/2015/12/22/average-driving-distance-pga-tour-hasnt-changed-much-decade/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiK55DS6qLZAhWJJMAKHeqADXoQFjABegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw2QBovw09mSmjUFW-wwEq-P&ampcf=1


It hasn't changed much in ten years, don't understand what the big fuss is about.

I don't think length should be the sole defence of a course anyhow, plenty of other ways of keeping the course tough.

The last 10 years is a short time. It doesn’t even take into account the Tiger era.

But even still, look at the number of “long hitters” as opposed to the yardage changes. In 2008, one guy was averaging 300 yards. Now pretty much half the field on the Saturday and Sunday of every tournament does so. That’s a huge change.

So, again from an entertainment perspective, where it used to be amazing to see a guy hit a short iron onto a par 5, or drive a par 4, now it’s every other John Tour Player who can do so.

Bare in mind, the driving is only part of the story. The ball goes further off irons as well. So if average driving goes up by 10 or 20 yards, add on more benefit for the 175 9 irons they’re now hitting.

Also worth pointing out that Daly (in the 90s) was using a Wilson Ultra ball - not a balata. So to get those distances he was sacrificing short game benefit. That’s not the case anymore.

ShriekingSheet

I don’t get the bifurcation argument.

What we watch on TV and what we play at the weekend are two different sports. There are already different rules for the tour / pros than for amateurs. There’s a really clear and distinct line could be drawn at main tour or secondary tour level to say: beyond here, you use a limited ball. Any elite player heading that direction will be able to work with that.

For everyone else, nothing changes, other than we get a bit of the entertainment value back that has been stripped away.

In fairness, is us that pays for the tour through TV rights, eyeballs for sponsors, equipment and BALL sales. So it’s not a ridiculous ask to want to preserve it as a spectacle.

backspin.

I'm sure engineers could design a ball that had diminishing returns as the swing speed goes in excess of 100mph. So someone swinging at 120mph wouldn't get 20% more distance maybe only 110% the distance.

With the current balls i think it is the opposite in that someone swing at 120mph probably gets 25% more distance of the 100mph swinger due to the way the core flexes.

dan_ep82

Don't see the argument of limiting the driver head size. The sweet spot stays the same size and the guys hitting it 300+ aren't missing the middle.

I understand argument of spectator sport ete. However, hitting the ball far is a player skill, not equipment or the R&A would have stopped it before it began. These guys are doing more work than your John Dalys to earn that extra yardage. And if you take out roll most of the drives are much less spectacular. It just seems unfair to punish the guys putting in the work and reward the players who don't.

Russman

dan_ep82 wrote: »

Don't see the argument of limiting the driver head size. The sweet spot stays the same size and the guys hitting it 300+ aren't missing the middle.

I understand argument of spectator sport ete. However, hitting the ball far is a player skill, not equipment or the R&A would have stopped it before it began. These guys are doing more work than your John Dalys to earn that extra yardage. And if you take out roll most of the drives are much less spectacular. It just seems unfair to punish the guys putting in the work and reward the players who don't.

Two points I sort of disagree with there,
Guys hitting it 300 can miss the middle of the club quite often, not by much, but by enough that a 460cc head lets them away with it.

I don't agree that guys who don't hit it far aren't putting in the work. Some players, no matter what they do, will never hit it 300yds. I would have thought the authorities should try to have a game where skill it still a little bit important along with distance, these days at the top level its all about power and little else really, essentially most weeks, with a few exceptions, boil down to a putting contest (in the States anyway, probably not so much in Europe).

dan_ep82

Russman wrote: »

Two points I sort of disagree with there,
Guys hitting it 300 can miss the middle of the club quite often, not by much, but by enough that a 460cc head lets them away with it.

I don't agree that guys who don't hit it far aren't putting in the work. Some players, no matter what they do, will never hit it 300yds. I would have thought the authorities should try to have a game where skill it still a little bit important along with distance, these days at the top level its all about power and little else really, essentially most weeks, with a few exceptions, boil down to a putting contest (in the States anyway, probably not so much in Europe).

These are the same guys hitting 3woods (smaller head) 260-280 in the air, really can't see the smaller head being a problem for long. Once they got used to it the smaller head will be swung even faster (weight+aerodynamics) so you would have the same "problem"

Why not, 110ss or so with a bit of roll will see 300yds and that's more or less the tour average. I'm sure most just look for fairway and give up a small bit if distance. Rory, DJ etc just go 100% and get the risk or reward.

If hitting the ball far wasn't a skill everyone would do it.

RoadRunner

I presume all proponents of "the ball goes too far and this needs to stop" are the poorest drivers on tour?

RGS

RoadRunner wrote: »

I presume all proponents of "the ball goes too far and this needs to stop" are the poorest drivers on tour?

Jack Nicklaus has been beating this drum for over 20 years and no one could accuse Jack, in his pomp, of being a short hitter.

Tiger has recently joined the chorus.

Something has to be done to bring the game back and changing the ball is the easiest solution.

If nothing is done new courses will need to go over 8,000 yds with par 5 nearer 700 yds. Where will designers get the land to build these new courses.

charlieIRL

I think they should tighten up fairways around the 280 - 350 yard mark! That'll stop them pounding one down that far and won't really effect the everyday golfer.

RoadRunner

RGS wrote: »

Jack Nicklaus has been beating this drum for over 20 years and no one could accuse Jack, in his pomp, of being a short hitter.

Tiger has recently joined the chorus.

Something has to be done to bring the game back and changing the ball is the easiest solution.

If nothing is done new courses will need to go over 8,000 yds with par 5 nearer 700 yds. Where will designers get the land to build these new courses.

No one would accuse Jack, in his pomp, of being a short hitter. However he certainly wasn't calling for these changes while in his pomp. Same too with Woods. It's great to have him back but he will use his clout to it's fullest to manipulate his chances of winning against his new opponents who now have a better long game than he does. His best chance of winning will certainly be to eliminate the advantage that the guys have who can swing 100% at the ball and still hit the fairway have over him. Was he calling for drastic changes to eliminate his advantage of the rest of the field during the tiger-proofing years? No. I'm sure the very term "tiger-proofing" give him great pride in his heyday.

re: courses needing to be 8,000y+ and 700y par5's, If you like, but why does it matter if -20 or +20 wins a comp?

Also changing the ball is not an easy solution to regulate unless you eliminate all the ball making manufacturers and standardise the ball to be made by a single manufacturer. Otherwise, well think of the type of cheating that's gone on in cycling by the teams to help them get every advantage. Cheating accusations in golf would be rampant whenever one guy outdrives another, "test that ball", "oh he hit it into the water - how convenient".

kiers47

Also excuse my ignorance. But if the ball is changed to make it not go as far. Surely this will have an effect on the shorter hitters to or do they get to use the old ball?

The long drivers will still be longer than the shorter drivers. Grand you are protecting the courses but are you really going to even up the playing field? Id be skeptical.

valoren

Money is a factor as well. The increase in prize money makes a potential career as a pro very attractive for talented players. With the more attractive financial aspect it is going to encourage those players to take a shot in the Pro ranks and being capable of carrying the ball 300 yards is no longer a wonder but has quickly become a necessity. With that comes a more capable pool of incoming young professionals for whom, with the aid of trackman, equipment and hunger 300+ yards is standard practice. For me that explains how 69 players now average over 300 in driving distance.

You win the Masters in 1988 and you got a cheque for $183,000. Win it now and it's a shade under $2 million. Quite an increase in 30 years.

We remember Bubba hitting a sand wedge into the 13th hole 4 years ago. A 360 yard drive over the trees and Rae's Creek. And yet, he still had to chip, to putt, to shape his irons, to hit all the shots he needed to in order to post the numbers to win.

In 1948, Ben Hogan's scoring average was 69.30. In 2016, for all the discourse about technology and the ball, Dustin Johnson's scoring average was 69.17. A negligible improvement in 68 years. Of course there has been course lengthening, deeper rough, faster greens to mitigate the distance increases but the scoring averages align in the professional ranks. To me that correlation indicates that those changes are now standardised, they have successfully made today's scoring averages align with historical tour averages.

The ball is actually standardised as well. Any new improvements can't breach a set speed off the clubface on the 'Iron Byron' machine. That's a machine which hit's it perfectly every time. With the attractiveness of prize money, more and more motivated players are fine tuning their game to hit the ball to nearer and nearer that perfection. Leave the ball alone and long live the long hitters.

martinkop

Well said Valoren.

Essentially the kids that grew up watching Tiger are now on tour, after practicing smashing the ball for years. Plus more people play golf nowadays, hence the ability pool at the top of the game is deeper.

Insecurity Guard

kiers47 wrote: »

Also excuse my ignorance. But if the ball is changed to make it not go as far. Surely this will have an effect on the shorter hitters to or do they get to use the old ball?

The long drivers will still be longer than the shorter drivers. Grand you are protecting the courses but are you really going to even up the playing field? Id be skeptical.

It's not about leveling the playing field in that sense. With a modified ball, poor drivers would still be poor and great drivers would still be great, but everyone would be a little shorter.

Long hitters have always been with us and they of course deserve whatever advantages they can get from that. The issues now though are (a) how far they are hitting it and (b) their growing numbers. Modern equipment, diet, weight training, etc. etc. help more and more hit it further and further, giving rise to all the issues already discussed. Superbly designed courses are made to look ridiculous. How many otherwise excellent courses are simply not long enough any more to host a top level event?

Golf at the highest level must need more than a driver and a wedge - finesse and accuracy are just as important as distance.

Mantis Toboggan

No need for this, as was said earlier in this thread narrow the fairways and punish players who are wild off the tee.

BigChap1759

RoadRunner wrote: »

I presume all proponents of "the ball goes too far and this needs to stop" are the poorest drivers on tour?

Jack Nicklaus?!

BigChap1759

I think the main point for me is that some of the classic major courses have no more room to move the tees back and the design isn’t relevant because, as was said earlier, the new ball and other advances let them fly the ball over all the trouble and clever design points.

The long guys will still have an advantage of being longer but probably not such a disproportionate advantage as they have now - they might have to play the courses as they were originally designed again.

I say pro spec ball that spins more, leave the rest of us alone

Benicetomonty

Hard to see how manafacturers could be persuaded to pull back on years of technological advancements, no matter how hard a line the USGA and RandA took. Remember what a disaster the former had trying to deal with Ping and the box groove controversy?

I will say that for tour pros, making a short course difficult is a tricky prospect. You either have to go down the Merion / Winged Foot route where the fairways are pinched in and the rough is grown to extreme lengths, to the point where players would have lost balls in the stuff if not for the thousands of spectators. The other option is to make the greens borderline unputtable, which literally putts the event itself at risk, ie Shinnecock and the Olympic Club. Bad weather can defend a links, but you cant bank on that any more than you can on good weather.

All in all I think Augusta has held up relatively well over the years. 13 is a great hole, you might be able to fly it up the left but anything mi**** or pulled slightly is dead.

death1234567

backspin. wrote: »

I'm sure engineers could design a ball that had diminishing returns as the swing speed goes in excess of 100mph. So someone swinging at 120mph wouldn't get 20% more distance maybe only 110% the distance.

With the current balls i think it is the opposite in that someone swing at 120mph probably gets 25% more distance of the 100mph swinger due to the way the core flexes.

This is the answer. It keeps the game the same for everyone and big hitters still have an advantage, just not as big of one as they have now. Current pro golf is a farce, keopka playing a near 8,000 yard us open course and never hitting any iron bigger than a seven iron was the moment it jumped the shark.

spacecoyote

BigChap1759 wrote: »

Jack Nicklaus?!

...and Tom Watson...and Greg Norman...and Tiger have all come out with similar arguments to Nicklaus

RoadRunner

Taking every tour pro in the world, forcing them to learn a new ball, then taking every ball manufacturer and forcing them to produce a ball that's x% sh1tter, but only for tour pros, regulating that the agreed apon x% is adhered to eternally, opening up a gulf in the difference between pro and amateur equipment. It is a lot of unworkable bullsh1t to have to go through because 3 former greats are upset that the younger guys are scoring better than they used to.

death1234567

RoadRunner wrote: »

Taking every tour pro in the world, forcing them to learn a new ball, then taking every ball manufacturer and forcing them to produce a ball that's x% sh1tter, but only for tour pros, regulating that the agreed apon x% is adhered to eternally, opening up a gulf in the difference between pro and amateur equipment. It is a lot of unworkable bullsh1t to have to go through because 3 former greats are upset that the younger guys are scoring better than they used to.

What a load of nonsense.

prawnsambo

death1234567 wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

I'm not sure that it is. The golf ball doesn't exist in isolation, it gets hit by a golf club that's engineered to get the most out of the contact area. If you change the mechanics of the ball, you can also change the mechanics of the driver to get more out of the strike. So there'd have to be a set of standards developed to prevent that and you would end up with a divergence of all equipment between pros and amateurs.

Slanty

Have to agree with what’s being said in this thread. Used to be a big fan of golf on tv but it’s gotten so boring of late. Long drives, short wedges, either gets the putt or doesn’t and walks on. Hardly ever in trouble.

When they started using the gallery stands as ball stops so they could fly the green taking the hazards out of play that’s when I stopped watching.

RoadRunner

death1234567 wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

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 :

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

backspin.

I wouldn't like to see the pros use a different ball to us amateurs.

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 :

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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________

GreeBo

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

RoadRunner

GreeBo wrote: »

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

fred funk }{

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

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 )

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

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.