The distance debate

fullstop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120358760#Comment_120358760

This. The ball is a big part of the problem, and to be honest I think they should just go back to wound balls and ban the once piece core, but the driver heads are also a huge part of the problem. 460cc head means that elite players can basically smash drives as hard as they want without fear of missing the sweet spot by too much. Reducing back to original Big Bertha or Great Big Bertha head size would make a huge difference and put an emphasis on finding the sweet spot.

billy3sheets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120364061#Comment_120364061

Sure. There's a limit to how far back they can be moved and in many cases it's not feasible as the room is not there. However, tee boxes are not just flat pieces of earth. Moving them costs a lot of money. In some clubs you'd end up with a situation where the current back tees become redundant as the course is too long off them for the vast majority of members.

A problem created for them which currently does not exist, just to resolve a problem in the professional game.

Russman

I've no manufacturing/scientific knowledge about this, but does anyone know for sure if the reduction in distance would be equal across all swing speeds and all clubs ? I have my doubts but can't really prove anything, particularly from a normal club golfer point of view. We don't have a practice ground but there's a spot on the course that I sometimes hit balls from late on a quiet summer evening and having being doing it for 20 years or so, my drivers were still finishing in the same spot in 2022 as in 2002. OK I'm 20 years older but my swing speed has remained pretty much exactly the same - on a good day I hover right around 100mph so its easy to remember if it ever moved. I doubt I'm fast enough to get the big benefit from the modern ball. I'd love to know would it follow that I also wouldn't see the big drop off with the new proposed ball.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120363309#Comment_120363309

Couldn't agree more with all that Fix.

I agree it would be best if the change was for everyone. I think they're probably scared of the initial vocal gut reaction from amateurs about losing 10 yards and stopping playing yada yada. Whether that's justified or not, time will tell I guess. I reckon one of two things will happen, 1) we'll have bifurcation for a few years and over time, eventually almost everyone will migrate to the new ball, or 2) after the consultation period they'll make the change for everyone. I think it will be 1) tbh, and eventually, like with the groove rule a few years ago, inter-club golf will be with the new ball only and that will be that for the old one.

spacecoyote

I think if the change was for would be an easier sell to the manufacturers.

With a split model, they have to spend a fortune on R&D and production to create a ball that they can't sell to the public (or the public won't want to buy). Its not exactly a profitable business model for them.

In terms of the performance, the guys in MyGolfSpy, in the article I posted above are saying that they think that the actual drop off in distance could be much more than the 15 yards claimed. This is based on thr fact that the speed and launch conditions that they're basing the 15 yards on are realistically unachievable.

Will be very interesting to see how it progresses as the reaction generally has been pretty hostile to it from all areas of the industry.

But given its the USGA and R&A, you'd assume that, if it goes ahead, they'll insist on it being implemented on the PGA tour and the majors that are under their control

RoadRunner

I'm not convinced that there's a problem currently, although I recognize that I may be in the minority on this. While I don't consider myself a traditionalist, many argue that changes to the game are necessary to uphold its traditions (that an excellent drive then followed up by a pitching wedge into a par 4 are seen as a bad thing). The idea of bifurcation, where different sets of players have different rules for key aspects of the game, is concerning given the game's history and that the rules have always been the same for everyone since a Scottish player first hit a ball over 400 years ago.

I've had the privilege of playing some of the world's best courses played weeks later by the greatest players in history, on equal footing. I knew at the time it was a special treat. Technically, I could have shot a score of 65 and been their equal (though, as it happens, I didn't 😀). Playing at these places allowed me to see why they are so special. However, if the version of golf being played there requires an asterisk next to my score because it's essentially a different sport than what the best players are playing, then the allure of these places would be diminished for me. Like driving a moped around Monte Carlo's open roads in traffic, walking those special fairways would be disconnected. Shouldn't traditionalists be feeling uneasy about needing an asterisk to denote which version of the sport they are playing?

Bifurcation would be the biggest change to golf since it's inception. With the emergence of new breakaway tours and the possibility of separate rules for elite and amateur players, the sport risks becoming fragmented at a time when many are already opting to play golf digitally or in topgolf scenarios.

Barnaboy

Great post @RoadRunner LIV has already split the game once. Don't need another one. Equipment manufacturers need it to be the same. So they can sell the idea our ball is best, Justin Thomas plays it etc.

Changing the allowed balls could be very tricky in the amateur game. Will people be expected to have their ball inspected on the first tee on a Sunday morning singles?

No need to change any equipment. Solution is to design in trouble on holes that makes pros think before pulling the big stick.

OEP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120364002#Comment_120364002

Amateurs are hitting the ball further too. So most courses will revert back to how they were played 10 - 20 years ago. I'm definitely at least a club shorter (if not 2) into most holes at my home course now than I was 10 years ago and that's not all down to me improving my swing or swing speed.

spacecoyote

One of the points I saw raised around the tradition and impact to older courses was exactly how slow it was in St Andrews last year. The rounds were all 6 hour plus, and that was primarily driven by the fact that so many of the par 4s were now driveable resulting in backlogs on a ton of tee boxes waiting for greens to clear.

billy3sheets

On the costs to manufacturers to develop new balls- haven't they all got R&D teams constantly working on ball technology? Would development of a slightly slower ball need that much change? A tweak to some of the material used? A change in dimple count or depth perhaps?

I think most amateurs play a different ball to the Pros anyway. The difference coming is that the amateurs might have the better performing ball 🤔

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365422#Comment_120365422

That's a fair point, but just on designing in trouble on holes to make them think about pulling the big stick, the already sort of do this in a fashion, most years at the US Open and half the pros whinge like b1tches about it, usually something like "....it takes the driver out of our hands..." etc etc.

TBH I'm not sure what the answer is. I'd rather see the same ball rules for everyone rather than bifuraction, but that would be an incredibly hard sell in the States.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365330#Comment_120365330

I don't think an excellent drive and a pitching wedge into a par 4 is a bad thing at all, but if its into a par 5.....maybe it is. I suppose if its a one off like a John Daly back in the 90s its fine, but if its most of the field its probably not, I think. I'm probably old and grumpy enough to remember Faldo's 2 iron at Augusta Vs Bubba's was it wedge or 9 iron (?) into the same hole (13th) 14/15 years later. Both hugely impressive but I'd hate to see the Bubba scenario become the norm tbh.

I haven't looked it up yet, but reading on Golfwrx, someone was saying that TXG have done a few tests comparing balls and apparently there was one showing a Pro V against some Wilson Duo Soft or something, and the Pro V was significantly longer at 120mph but there was no difference at I think 95mph. As I say, I haven't looked it up yet, but it was something along those lines. I'd say the likes of TXG will be all over this and do plenty of new tests. Interesting times.

RoadRunner

• I don't think any change is necessary.
• If there is to be change, I think the best way to bring about this change is across the board affecting all players the same. Bifurcation is the worst that can happen.
• I don't like reducing the ball effectiveness as a way of dialing back. Even though I don't think any change is necessary I prefer the idea of reducing driver head size. If golf has a distance problem (bear in mind I don't think it does) then the problem is manifested by having poor drives go great distances. Smaller head (reduced COR if you like) will allow the best players in the world to still hit good drives. But it will make them swing within their abilities more often.
• If rollback is neccessary, do it right and the best drivers of the ball can continue to keep their natural advantage that they should have.
• To aid regulation of drivers, (not ball) it could be phased in at different pace for pro/amateur. EG: pro needs to use new small head driver by 2025. But amateurs are given deadline of 2030 to switch. This idea removes bifurcation and means you wont get too much crankiness from someone who just bought a new driver and doesn't want to get rid of it in 2 years.

El Guapo!

Apparently this is only for elite level golfers and not to affect the amateur game. But no doubt it will eventually trickle down to the amateur level.

I personally dont agree with it. There's no need to disrupt an entire sport just to curb the distance of a handful of top level players. Courses are long enough for most amateurs and part of the enjoyment is bombing it around as much as possible. Why make the game harder for amateurs? It's not as though every second amateur is crushing 340 yards drives in the monthly medal.

I think this is primarily to preserve courses like St. Andrews that no longer present much of a challenge unless the wind is crazy.

I don't agree with this change as I think there are better ways to do it..... make sure the rough is up really high to punish offline tee shots, strategically placed fairway bunkers, grow the grass up slightly longer on fairways to curtail roll out, protect the greens with punishing bunkers, and firm up the greens to make them more difficult.

Having said all that, I don't know the exact figures but I don't think the scoring average has dropped astronomically since pros started bombing it off the tee. I don't see much of a problem here that needs fixing tbh.

Miley Byrne

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365330#Comment_120365330

Unless you played off the tips and with green speeds the same as at a tour event then any comparison with the pros is utterly pointless.

spacecoyote

Comment from Tiger a few years ago

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120361954#Comment_120361954

the numbers of golfers hitting the ball over 300 total is minute, 330 even smaller

blackbox

It should be possible to do something with the aerodynamics of the ball rather than the elasticity to reduce distance.

This would have most impact on elite players who create a higher ball speed and less impact on amateurs.

Changing the clubs would be a huge cost if players had to dump their current clubs.

fullstop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365030#Comment_120365030

Could be a number of factors why your ball is finishing in a similar spot all these years later, but it’s likely down to the drivers that were in play in 2002. There were the ‘high CoR’ driver in the market in those days, the rules around which changed in 2004 (I think) yo reduce the trampoline effect. The golf balls since then have got significantly longer.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120367441#Comment_120367441

what is the purpose of a bunker though?

You could have a 150 yard range of shots just off the tee

are they there to catch the bad shot of to make the long player lay up because they are in their landing zone

dan_ep82

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120367409#Comment_120367409

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxijRy2nrWs

It would be a mistake to change the amateur ball, we don't hit it far enough as it is. No one in club golf is walking away with prizes because of their length off the tee.

fullstop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120367561#Comment_120367561

That’s VERY surprising, and would suggest that they should indeed be looking at the drivers first!

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120367667#Comment_120367667

not really surprising, they did the first roll back on balls in the early 2000s and limited the COR of drivers effectively around the same time, distances from equipment gains basically stopped at that point.

that's at a pro level where they measure goods shots when they take driving distance

there are gains from launch monitors (recent enough) and speed of swing/fitness after that, probably around mid 2000s starting where tiger changed the game and everyone had to try and catch up, probably took 10 years

I would say sticking with the ball is the easiest first port of call as it requires the least change and stops the like of the non conforming drivers lists being extended and affects all clubs

Quahog217

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120367561#Comment_120367561

Most accurate post in this thread

FixdePitchmark

Interesting thread - with great, different opinions.

The more I have read up and listened - the more in favor of a change I am - There are aspects of the problem that I did not consider - or come to mind.

The bunker design on courses

Slow play when too many par 4s and par 5s are reachable - of course, going for a par 4 or 5 should be a cherished part of the game - but when it is happening on maybe 5 to say 7 holes - how impractical is that. 6 hour rounds in St Andrews (jaysus)

Whilst I think they need to pull the pros back more - it was a reasonable position from the R&A etc - that we at least need to hold where we are - as the game is outgrowing itself. If anyone has gone to any of these modern courses - that are designed for the modern game - they are torturous places - no matter what tee you are on - the walks - the difficultly - the time on the course.

I didn't even think - that some amateur's courses are having to change the design - due to the lengthening game.

Whilst I personally disagree with it - I've had to take on board the point that amateurs want to play the same equipment as the pros. The impact for amateurs - by design or due the reality of our games , would be minimal if the change was impacted across the board.

I personally would accept the new ball - I might lose 10 yards - but if it is for the bigger picture, the betterment of the game in the long run , I'd be happy enough to play the new ball to avoid the difference. It in realty would have very little impact on the amateur game. Would it even be 0.1 of a shot , I doubt it.

Quahog217

The average male driving distance is around 220 yards............anyone that thinks it reasonable to take distance of an amateur is crazy. It simply does not make sense for amateurs.

FixdePitchmark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120369552#Comment_120369552

It might change the average by 1 or 2 yards. It would make very little difference in the overall picture. The average your mentioning there relates to age - technique etc. The purpose of the changes is to deal with a problem at the max. Again - I'd suggest it is possible to alter the distance at the higher end that would have minimal to a tiny fraction of a difference across the lower end.

The governing bodies want to just target the pros - but it is the amateurs who are strongly objecting to having different equipment.

I'd hope they can come up with a ball - that doesn't impact on that average.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120367561#Comment_120367561

I agree we don't hit it far enough already, but I'd ever so slightly disagree with the point about winning prizes based on length. I get what you're saying and mostly agree, but I think the likes of Shot Scope and Arcos and the whole strokes gained metric have shown that the longer you are off the tee, the fewer shots it takes you to complete the hole (broadly speaking).

I know my practice drives were ending up in much the same place, in fairness as Fullstop says, that could be for any number of reasons (wet, dry, windy, cold etc) but last year I had my best season in a number of years, nothing changed in the bag, but I got some lessons and according to Shot Scope I picked up 8/9 yards off the tee. Was the additional yardage the reason for my better play ? Honestly I've no idea, I'd have leaned towards saying reducing the disaster holes as being the reason, but an extra 10 yards certainly didn't hurt.

Its a great debate, love seeing the different viewpoints. I do think a change would be best if it was across the board though, and better again if the R&D teams could ensure that someone at 120mph was losing XX amount but your average club guy was much less impacted.

dan_ep82

Changing the ball for 8 million golfers to handicap the 50 people on the PGA tour who can drive a few greens at St. Andrews and a few others courses would be madness. I don’t see the R&A extending it to amateurs , there’s no gain to be had from it and would just reinforce the non fun persona

evillive

I'm not sure this will work, let's say Seamus power currently it's it 30 yards on average past Shane Lowry,(insert other golfers of your choice if you don see that scenario) and it's all down to swing speed and technique. Tweak the ball surely the driving distance differential would remain the same. Yes the driver/wedge par 5s are not what we want to see, if a golfer has an eagle putt it would be much more enjoyable to watch if he's played a wood into the green.

For me they need to put the longer hitters optimum landing range a much smaller target,brng in the fairway and rough a these pinch points. But not on all holes leave a handful of risk and reward holes, but make it more about course management

We won't see Augusta or st Andrews changing and that can be ok, the greens in Augusta and bunkers, undulations, never mind the wind at st Andrews or the big name links courses are still enough of a challenge.

spacecoyote

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120369805#Comment_120369805

Augusta has made massive changes to add length to the course where they can. They built a brand new tee box on 13 for this year changing the length to 545 yards. It was originally opened in 1934 as a 480 yard hole.

Bryson to an extent disproved the idea of tight fairways and dense rough when he won his major. Just bombed it as far as possible and had enough power that he could get through the rough and still generate spin with wedges.

I see Harrington has come out strongly in favour of the changes. Was a piece in Irish Golfer Mag about it.

1939 vs 2022 scorecards