Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
I refer the Honourable member for Watford to post 786........
We don't know anything concrete yet.
Roll Back Discussion
- Thread starter Imurg
- Start date
We don't know anything concrete yet.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Maybe we should just find a way to ensure EVERY golfer hits the ball exactly the same distance, and a distance of the authorities choosing. Then we don't need to worry about length at all, and just try and keep the ball on target. It will also mean we can completely remove the advantage fit, flexible and strong athletes have in the game, and play the game like it is apparently meant to be played. We can also play courses that were designed 200 years ago in the way the course architect at the time felt the game should be played.
While we are at it. Golf was designed to be played by men wearing formal wear, not this perfect fitting athletic wear that golfers wear today that offer comfort and better movement. Golf was designed to be played with wooden golf clubs, and a ball made from a leather sack filled with boiled goose feathers. Bring it all back. All these advances in technology have absolutely destroyed the game of golf. Nobody plays it anymore, there are no forums about golf as there would be no interest and no media broadcasting company in their right mind would ever spend millions, let alone billions paying for the rights to show golf. There simply is no market for it. Players simply hit the ball too far these days for it to be enjoyable. Nobody likes to see the odd pro hit a ball over 400 yards in the ideal conditions, it just makes fans vomit into their cups of tea.
Although, on the day the rules become concrete for amateurs to adopt, it is going to be a pain in the backside having to throw away my Callaway Chromesofts that I still have in the bag. It is obvious that most amateurs will continue to play the older, better golf balls right up until they are no longer allowed. And on the day they become prohibited, I've no doubt many many amateurs will continue to use their stash of old golf balls, and continue to use the old golf balls they find in the jungle. I'll be honest, in a competition I won't be the busy body that investigates every ball the chaps I play with are using, and report them anytime I realise they are playing a non-conforming ball.
Is this the first example in golf where proposed new technology is going backwards?
While we are at it. Golf was designed to be played by men wearing formal wear, not this perfect fitting athletic wear that golfers wear today that offer comfort and better movement. Golf was designed to be played with wooden golf clubs, and a ball made from a leather sack filled with boiled goose feathers. Bring it all back. All these advances in technology have absolutely destroyed the game of golf. Nobody plays it anymore, there are no forums about golf as there would be no interest and no media broadcasting company in their right mind would ever spend millions, let alone billions paying for the rights to show golf. There simply is no market for it. Players simply hit the ball too far these days for it to be enjoyable. Nobody likes to see the odd pro hit a ball over 400 yards in the ideal conditions, it just makes fans vomit into their cups of tea.
Although, on the day the rules become concrete for amateurs to adopt, it is going to be a pain in the backside having to throw away my Callaway Chromesofts that I still have in the bag. It is obvious that most amateurs will continue to play the older, better golf balls right up until they are no longer allowed. And on the day they become prohibited, I've no doubt many many amateurs will continue to use their stash of old golf balls, and continue to use the old golf balls they find in the jungle. I'll be honest, in a competition I won't be the busy body that investigates every ball the chaps I play with are using, and report them anytime I realise they are playing a non-conforming ball.
Is this the first example in golf where proposed new technology is going backwards?
D
Deleted member 1147
Guest
I average about 260-270 in the summer months (now my fitness has returned)
Swango1980
Well-known member
O dear, you might be sub 250 yards in the future. I guess it means you'll be able to take driver at will on some holes, as the bunkers the clubs have put in are now out of range off the tee. I wonder if some clubs will be kicking themselves, if they've recently put in obstacles like bunkers to impact how most golfers play the course, knowing that some of them will be redundant to all but the very very small minority.
I am taking the R&A line. It is indisputable that they know best - whether that is correct or not is to be seen, but they are the ones who did the tests and spec change definition. And thie concern is the long hitters, hence the original bifurcation proposal. They are not trying to take people hitting it 200yd back to 185.So many conflicting opinions on this. You're saying we wouldn't be affected yet other people are saying we'll all lose 10 yards. Which is it? I suppose the moral is we have no idea yet.
A lot of the discussion is based on the idea that us handicapper will lose 15 yards. If that were so, then some pushback would be at least understandable (though I am on the side hc golfer being reduced from 200 to 185 would be a good thing also, but that is by the way). But it is not so. The 15yd reduction is for Rory and Bryson etc. So not for us. So it is a non issue. The only legitimate gripe we hc golfer could have is that we SHOULD also be tailed back by 15-30 yards. But that isnt in the proposal at all.
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
I suspect its easier solved than most think. The R&A and USGA will simply convert US/UK courses to metric and you’ll all be hitting it about 10% shorter than you do now and in-line with the rest of the planet 
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Pretty far then! Certainly above the average club golfer!
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Sure - I've got my fingers crossed that it's simply a limit on maximum compression or something that genuinely won't affect us. I just find it baffling how many times I see people saying a loss of 10% of distance won't affect us as golfers when it quite plainly would. Even saw McIlroy saying it won't affect anyone's enjoyment to lose that much distance - what the hell would he know? Won't affect him of course but he's completely out of touch with the weekend golfer.
Backache
Assistant Pro
As far as I'm aware there is not yet an official R&A line?
D
Deleted member 1147
Guest
upper end, but not elite by any means!
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
It's interesting to note that the current distance limit is 317 yards at 120mph.
In the MyGolfSpy ball tests this year not one ball fell inside this limit at 115mph.
The longest was the ProV1 Left dash at 348 yards and the shortest was the TP5 at 328.
Roll was calculated using the USGA formula and added to the carry distance generated by GC Quad.
I do wonder as to the R&A/USGA testing procedure when a 120mph swing speed only produces 317 maximum yards
In the MyGolfSpy ball tests this year not one ball fell inside this limit at 115mph.
The longest was the ProV1 Left dash at 348 yards and the shortest was the TP5 at 328.
Roll was calculated using the USGA formula and added to the carry distance generated by GC Quad.
I do wonder as to the R&A/USGA testing procedure when a 120mph swing speed only produces 317 maximum yards
Last edited:
There is a very good indication of it at least - the original bifurcated model rule. This move just looks like it is that - but obligatory.
Backache
Assistant Pro
Well the entire point about bifurcation was that it could not affect the ordinary amateur golfer .The current discussion is on how this may affect the amateur golfer about which as far as I'm aware the authorities have said nothing. Not so far that it is even going to happen officially.
sjw
Well-known member
rksquire
Head Pro
Most sports try to move forward, Golf it seems is intent on taking backward steps. Course sustainability could be addressed by design, par amendments (a par 72 for mortals can be a par 69 for the elite), etc. Manufacturers have sold us all on the issue of distance, so hopefully there'll massive reductions on balls (& equipment) given most R&D will have surpassed future requirements. Even at our level ego plays a part - doesn't matter that a modern 7i is really an old school 6i or 5i, the perception is you hit that low lofted 7i a mile. If some reports are suggesting 5-10 yards shorter on every club, then I can see some at our club no longer being competitive - when you're taking a driver on some par 3s you can't really club up. When you're hitting a 3 wood over water on a par 5 to try and get a GIR, you'll likely be playing a minimum of 4 to get to the green. Rolling the ball back will prematurely age me by about 3 years!
sjw
Well-known member
Changing the par wouldn't make a jot of difference. At the end of the day, elite golf is won by the player who hits the ball fewest times. The number assigned to par is completely irrelevant
Crow
Crow Person
A contributing factor will be the CoR of the driver used, if this isn't at the maximum, including tolerance, then they won't be measuring the ball's full potential.
If, for instance, they use a 0.81 CoR driver as they think this is more typical then distance will be down.
For the test to be meaningful they must use the maximum CoR of 0.83 which includes tolerance (or whatever the CT equivalent is) and the strike must be optimal.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
They use a driver head with a CT of 239 which is the limit.....
Crow
Crow Person
Who did, the R&A or MyGolfSpy?
D
Deleted member 15717
Guest
You mean, the guy that is sponsored by Titleist is coming up with data to scare people and garner clicks?
Shocking.
