Bryson DeChambeau

willabur

GreeBo wrote: »

Yeah they can, but I'd worry about slowing down play even further!

They should enforce the 3 minute rule for searching for balls and put players on the clock if they are not playing holes at a proper pace.

The very last thing they should be doing is having a different ball for pros than they have for amateurs.

GreeBo

willabur wrote: »

The very last thing they should be doing is having a different ball for pros than they have for amateurs.

Who says it needs to be different?
Also, there are examples of where the rules for pros are/were different than for am's.
COR, groves, same ball, etc

Matmania

They just can't making golf course's longer etc. Cost of land etc. The way the game is going they guys are getting bigger and the technology is always improving. Langer hitting if further now at 62 that when he started on tour. Jack has said putting limits on the ball. Wimbledon done it in the tennis and it improved the game. I know Byrson didn't win but up and coming golfer's may look at this and think it's the way to go. There is defo skills in the long hitting but on most course's the punishment is not severe enough for missing the fairway. Distance can be a massive advantage on certain course's as you have a more lofted club for the second shot. I think professional golf should test all part's of a player's game but some weeks most clubs used for the second shot are short irons or wedges. I liked to see them do something with the ball. However the companies won't be happy so it may be a long road before something happens. Jack and Player are backing a limit on the ball so it may happen. We shall see.

Golf is my Game

willabur wrote: »

The very last thing they should be doing is having a different ball for pros than they have for amateurs.

This is true. A shorter ball for everyone has all the positives and no disadvantages. It has to happen.

Golf is my Game

GreeBo wrote: »

Who says it needs to be different?
Also, there are examples of where the rules for pros are/were different than for am's.
COR, groves, same ball, etc

COR and grooves, were transitional things where joe soap was given time not be be out of pocket with his gear, but the pros could change for no cost. And as with the same ball thing, they didnt have a real effect on the shot of effectively all golfers.
But shortening the ball would be a clear difference seen on every shot and be two different games then.
But yes, it doesnt need to be different. Shorten it for all. People everywhere would love it. And still keep the big forgiving driver. If anything, the benefit of the big driver - supposed to make the game more playable for the less skilled lads - is lost because of the distance gain given by the modern club and ball. So no real gain really. Whereas the average 15 handicapper, with his driver of today, if he could maxing out at 200yards with roll, would find the game more playable and enjoyable. The high lad, would have a much better change if he wasnt hitting it as far too.

DuckSlice

Golf is my Game wrote: »

This is true. A shorter ball for everyone has all the positives and no disadvantages. It has to happen.

A ball that goes shorter? Well that just gives the long hitters an even bigger advantage no?

thegolfer

etxp wrote: »

A ball that goes shorter? Well that just gives the long hitters an even bigger advantage no?

I don't understand your logic?

The golfers playing the lower compression ball hit it shorter in the same proportion as every else i.e. 10% shorter say or 15% if that is the number.

Long hitters have advantage over short hitters in that they hit it long, but long hitters don't always win.

The art, style, and shot shaping of golf is not present like it was say 20 years ago with the balata balls, or persimmon woods.

Fortunately I have played quite a number of years and miss the shot shaping, it is actually a lost art these days.

Guys who bomb it, great, but it's very one dimensional. Strange how all the commentary still refers to the great strikers, Hogan, Floyd, Nicklaus, Ballesteros, Olazabal.

Bring back the short ball for the pros, more playability in the ball and watch them have to play golf, rather than wonder how trackman can fix it. Even Harmon referenced that these days with the young guys rocking up with their data wondering what's wrong with their game.

The likes of Pine Valley bringing back scrubland into the course, you'll see the traditionalist scale back the equipment at some point too.

PARlance

etxp wrote: »

A ball that goes shorter? Well that just gives the long hitters an even bigger advantage no?

No, if they developed a ball that was 20% less shorter
Player A: 320 drive turns into 256
Player B: 250 drive turns into 200

A has gone from being 70 yards ahead to only being 56 yards ahead of B.

But the reality is that it won't make a huge difference in a long vs short hitter scenario. I've used extreme examples in terms of the ball % and gap between the drives of the 2 players... and it still only narrowed the gap by 14 yards.

Where it would make a big difference is to how Player A would have to play the course and would bring in a lot of danger (fairway bunkers, doglegs etc, originally designed to be a trap for even long hitters) that the modern player just flys over these days.

Golf is my Game

PARlance wrote: »

No, if they developed a ball that was 20% less shorter
Player A: 320 drive turns into 256
Player B: 250 drive turns into 200

A has gone from being 70 yards ahead to only being 56 yards ahead of B.

But the reality is that it won't make a huge difference in a long vs short hitter scenario. I've used extreme examples in terms of the ball % and gap between the drives of the 2 players... and it still only narrowed the gap by 14 yards.

It's not as simple as above, and can be done. You are assuming that theirs a linear reduction in length. But that doesn't have to be. You can make a ball where the 320 yard drive turns into a 250, and the 250 drive turns into a 220. Or whatever. So the long lad still has his deserved advantage, but the advantage is less. Its to do with the golf ball matterial, compression, energy and stuff where extra club speed translates into less and less ball speed. It can be tuned to any curve of club speed/distance you want almost.
Id be all for the longest tour lads topping out at 280, and a typical fiveteen hcer hitting it 200-210.
The shorter tour lads would then be 260. Just a club or so different. And the same would apply to the irons. So the nonsense of a 450yd par 4 being a drive and a wedge for them would be gone. Itd be a drive and a 6 iron or so. And routinely carrying fairway bunkers and stuff like they aren't there would be gone too.

DuckSlice

Is it not good logic to think no matter what the composition of the ball is, that current players who hit it long are still going to hit the ball longer than the shorter players?

You are then giving the longer hitters better chances at making eagles etc, when the shorter ones can no longer make the green in two.

Maybe im missing something here?

If players can hit it long and straight then fair play to them, they have obviously got a very high skill set.

Matmania

The longer hitters are not hitting in long and straight. The course setup most weeks doesn't punish shots that miss the fairways in general as the ruff is minimal. So the bombers can just lash it and still have a shot in. That's the problem. Decreasing the distance the ball go's stops course's having to get longer and longer. It also makes golfer's hit more clubs and actually play golf. The average drive has gone up so much over the year's where does it end. Dechambeau has looked at this and said it's worth the risk. Up coming golfer's may do the same so the average drive could go to 330 - 340 so most second shot's be wedges short irons on alot of course's. Accurate driving should be rewarded as well as wayward but it's not. Look most weeks there is little ruff and it's just target golf. As i said Jack Player been saying the same and i think i'd respect what they say. The RA/USPGA are looking at this seriously at the moment and i'd expect some changes to happen. I think it would be for the good of the game as technology in clubs and the ball have made alot of courses little pitch and putt course's to the pro's. Be interesting to see how Dechambeau get's on in the masters as i feel this is why he has made the changes. Masters fairways are very wide little rough. The winner of the masters us usually the one who can score on the par fives. I'm having a few quid on him anyway.

GreeBo

etxp wrote: »

A ball that goes shorter? Well that just gives the long hitters an even bigger advantage no?

I dont think anyone is trying to stop longer hitters from having an advantage?
They (well me anyway!) want to dial everyone back for the good of the game.

GreeBo

etxp wrote: »

Is it not good logic to think no matter what the composition of the ball is, that current players who hit it long are still going to hit the ball longer than the shorter players?

You are then giving the longer hitters better chances at making eagles etc, when the shorter ones can no longer make the green in two.

Maybe im missing something here?

Huh?
Longer hitters always have an advantage over shorter hitters when it comes to length. A ball that goes 20% shorter doesnt alter that in the slightest.

If it means the long guys are now hitting a 3W and the shorter guys cant reach then that is really no different than the longer guys hitting 7i and the shorter guys hitting 2I.

etxp wrote: »

If players can hit it long and straight then fair play to them, they have obviously got a very high skill set.

Indeed, so it would be unfair to disproportionally punish them, which is why no one is suggesting that.

thegolfer

etxp wrote: »

Is it not good logic to think no matter what the composition of the ball is, that current players who hit it long are still going to hit the ball longer than the shorter players?

You are then giving the longer hitters better chances at making eagles etc, when the shorter ones can no longer make the green in two.

Maybe im missing something here?

If players can hit it long and straight then fair play to them, they have obviously got a very high skill set.

Just on the high skill set you mention, they don't have it.

The ball is designed to fly straight and less deviation these days. Combine with a driver translates to straight long shots.

Benicetomonty

To be honest, when course set ups take the approach of growing rough to counteract long hitting, you've already got bifurcation in a sense, because those courses become utterly unplayable for an amateur player.

Forget the fact that pros, through a combination of skill, good decision making and, yes, strength, will be able to extricate themselves from such rough far more efficiently, the real difference relates to actually being able to locate your ball to begin with.

When the idea of golf tournaments behind closed doors was first floated, Brooks Koepka was the first to point out that course conditions would have to be modified because he knew that without fans, pros would start losing golf balls if they strayed from the fairways. It's not week in, week out but the only way the rough can be made to be an actual factor in combatting distance at a tour event is to make it stupidly thick.

We all had a good laugh at the USA complaining about the rough at the last Ryder Cup. We wouldnt have laughed if we'd played it under the same conditions the next day because, without the benefit of spectators, every missed fairway would equate to a lost ball, which is no way to play the game imo. It also puts massive pressure on whomever is tasked with setting up a course to get the rough at the optimum length. Sometimes they get it right (Winged Foot in 2006), sometimes they get it wrong (Merion 2013) and sometimes it's an out and out calamity (Carnoustie 1999). In all 3 cases, a player of any level would probably run out of balls trying to finish unless they had spotters on every hole; a 10 handicapper would walk in after 6 or 7 holes.

Some courses seem to able to keep scoring in check without resorting to insane rough and distance. Valderamma in Spain comes to mind, although it's a love/hate course amongst the pros owing to the countless cork trees, relentless doglegs and tiny, slopey greens. The sand belt in Australia is universally respected but its unique climate makes its courses impossible to replicate anywhere else.

With all that in mind, Id like to see something done with the ball for all golfers, pro and amateur. I dont want bifurcation but if I cant see myself breaking 80 or even 90 off a 3 hc around a US Open set up golf course, that tells me Im already not really playing the same game as the pros are. Bringing back balatas means less distance and more spin. Ball is more vulnerable to the wind but also more scope for shaping shots and short game magic coming to the fore. As with any equipment variation, vast majority of amateurs will barely notice any difference. But the pros will. Immediately.

Matmania

I think for the good of the game distance will have to be looked at. If it keeps going the way it is. 8000 yard plus golf courses will be needed and that's not right. Average handicapper's just won't be able to play courses that long. Maintenance cost's go up as well as land cost's etc. I think the ball is the way to go. As its the easiest think to limit. With clubs there are to many variables to look at.

Golf is my Game

etxp wrote: »

Is it not good logic to think no matter what the composition of the ball is, that current players who hit it long are still going to hit the ball longer than the shorter players?

You are then giving the longer hitters better chances at making eagles etc, when the shorter ones can no longer make the green in two.

Maybe im missing something here?

If players can hit it long and straight then fair play to them, they have obviously got a very high skill set.

With respect, I think you are missing something. And a few others as well. It's not that the longer hitters won't always have an advantage, but it the amount of that advantage, that is controlled by the specs of the equipment, that we think should be reduced. The 'stretch' between long and short is too great, and the distance advantage is outweighing the acxuracy/skill/shot making side. And that à shorter ball would bring that back to a better balance to the better of the game for all.

Golf is my Game

GreeBo wrote: »

Huh?
Longer hitters always have an advantage over shorter hitters when it comes to length. A ball that goes 20% shorter doesnt alter that in the slightest.

It certainly does. Theres a big difference in the level of advantage once drives become so long that all par 4s become drive and wedge holes, and there no such thing as a tru par 5 anymore.
There a big difference between the advantage I. The past where a long lad was hitting a 7 iron into a green, and the shorter lad had to take a 5. That's fair enough. But when it becomes a long lad getting inside 100 yards, and the shorter guy still hitting a full 8 iron, then that has changed the game. His advantage isn't just a club or two. It's a flip of a pitch versus a full shot. With a much bigger difference in probable outcome than the 7iron v 5 iron scenario used to give.

PARlance

Bryson has had a good start to the resumption of the PGA Tour.

coolshannagh28

PARlance wrote: »

Bryson has had a good start to the resumption of the PGA Tour.

He deserves it , he has moved the game forward substantially with his ideas and generated interest and colour .

Matmania

Yes he has. And i'm sure other's are looking at what he's done and may think it's the way to go. 340 average drive would ruin the game imo. Second shot's would just be wedges short irons. Game would become like pitch and putt. The average drive has gone up massively over the years. They need to do something. Even the shorter hitters are averaging in and around 290 off the tee. Webb Simpson currently stands at 100 in driving distance on the pga. His average drive is 297.5 yards.

PARlance

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

He deserves it , he has moved the game forward substantially with his ideas and generated interest and colour .

Not sure if he has moved the game forward substantially imo but he has definitely generated lots of interest and I think that's good to see.

The attention he has gotten is a little OTT imo, it's as if he had won the first two events. Both winners we very regularly built guys.

I'll be following with interest all the same. It will be interesting for me to see how he handles all this bulk he has put on and see what effect it has on his body/injuries down the line.

Matmania

Yes the injuries down the line could be a worry alright. Very interested to see how he go's in the masters. Masters the par fives play a big part. Wide fairways so it could be a big advantage. When Bubba won twice he had success on the par fives. I remember one of the par fives he took it over the trees and had a wedge in. That's a massive help. I think Byrson is looking at the master's in particular with the change's hes made.

DuckSlice

PARlance wrote: »

Bryson has had a good start to the resumption of the PGA Tour.

He has, I looked at something today and it said his overall strokes gained this season is 55, so for all the rounds he has played this season he is 55 shots better off than before. impressive. I don't fully understand strokes gained though so I could be picking this up wrong. wouldn't be like me to misunderstand something :P

BoldReason

etxp wrote: »

He has, I looked at something today and it said his overall strokes gained this season is 55, so for all the rounds he has played this season he is 55 shots better off than before. impressive. I don't fully understand strokes gained though so I could be picking this up wrong. wouldn't be like me to misunderstand something :P

Strokes gained is a measurement against the field average not against himself.

DuckSlice

BoldReason wrote: »

Strokes gained is a measurement against the field average not against himself.

So he has gained 55 strokes on the field this season?

ThewhiteJesus

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

He deserves it , he has moved the game forward substantially with his ideas and generated interest and colour .

Have to disagree with this 100 %
He's a cheat with his time keeping and disregard for the rules, as for moving the game forward, how exactly has he moved it forward from the likes of Tiger, Dustin and Rory ?
Going from an athlete pre lockdown to a porker post lockdown is hardly progressive.
An extra 10 yards for a heart attack, yay

ThewhiteJesus

Matmania wrote: »

Yes the injuries down the line could be a worry alright. Very interested to see how he go's in the masters. Masters the par fives play a big part. Wide fairways so it could be a big advantage. When Bubba won twice he had success on the par fives. I remember one of the par fives he took it over the trees and had a wedge in. That's a massive help. I think Byrson is looking at the master's in particular with the change's hes made.

the course suits lefties to hit big fades off the tee, that has more to do with it than length

BoldReason

etxp wrote: »

So he has gained 55 strokes on the field this season?

Yes I haven't seen the table you are referring to in a while but that seems fairly reasonable. That will be including every round he played.

So for example if he played 10 rounds he would be picking up 5.5 shots on average per round. That table should also give you the rounds played number for more clarity on it.

Fred_

For those saying he had moved the game on... How has he moved it on any more than Tiger / Daly when they came in to the scene with massive power advantages? Similar could be said of Nicklaus. Power is, was and always will be an advantage but he's not unique in having a power avantage.

The most surprising thing for me is that he is fairly accurate considering the big gains.