the Distance Debate - should the authorities act

[Deleted member 3432]

I think that's the issue. Very few courses are designed or maintained with just Tour players in mind. 99.9% of golf is played by handicap golfers.

We are probably reaching a time when the Tour / Pro Golf could afford to have purpose built venues like Muirfield Village, Sawgrass, Augusta that cater for elite play. But that is still going to be a small number of venues.

And of course there will always be a clamour for places to have a piece of that action and they will take action to lengthen and strengthen their courses.

The trickle down effect is also such that any new venue or renovation is going to be pushing 8,000 yard tee options even if they aren't setting up for Tour golf.

Newest course to open in Scotland, Dumbarnie Links, has tournament tees at 7,620 and I'd probably guess and say they might well have left room behind a few tees to extend further back in the future.

That's a lot of land, a lot of turf, a lot of paths, a lot of grass to cut, fertilise and water... and isn't going to add up to a cheap round of golf or a quick one given the size these properties will have to be.

Isn't it easier to just give guys a smaller headed Driver and a ball with shallower dimples and play at hundreds of already suitable courses!

That last sentence is exactly what Jack Nicklaus has been saying for years.

What does he know about golf?

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Vintage golf, it's where it was.

Just a thought.
Do you think the PGA might do something daring? Like have one of the tour competitions played where the players have to use "old " clubs, say, from Ben Hogans time?

It could be extra curricular, just for a laugh , with proceeds going to charity.
It could be played on the same course that a week previously they played a regular PGA event on.?

Now, if I were someone who liked watching the players as a spectator on the course, that is one event I would really be wanting to watch!

 

[Jimaroid]

interesting comments by R&A Chief Martin Slumbers.

“It is too simple just to say change the ball. Way too simple. You can do things with the ball.

“But it's the relationship between ball and club which is most important to me.”

That is indeed a very interesting quote. It's obviously an evolving situation but it's interesting how the position might be changing from comments I'd heard second-hand late last year.

 

[clubchamp98]

That last sentence is exactly what Jack Nicklaus has been saying for years.

What does he know about golf?

Didn’t he build a course on the Caymen islands just like this.?
The ball only went half distance ,as there wasn’t room on the island for a full size course.
Sounds weird hitting a full driver 120yds.

 

[Slab]

If you just switch yards to meters that 350 drive is now a piddly 320 and the local 7,500 goat track comes in at a manageable 6,850. Golf reined in by 10 years.

Problem solved methinks

 

[garyinderry]

Didn’t he build a course on the Caymen islands just like this.?
The ball only went half distance ,as there wasn’t room on the island for a full size course.
Sounds weird hitting a full driver 120yds.

Full PW 10 yards? Haha no chance.

 

[clubchamp98]

Full PW 10 yards? Haha no chance.

Think it’s 50% so PW would be 60 yds for me
It would be ver strange 5yds gaps in clubs.

 

[Crow]

The downside of using shallower dimples is that it reduces the aerodynamic effect of spin and so shot shaping.

I might have mentioned it before but in the 1968 book "In Search of the Perfect Swing" (one of the first in depth scientific studies of golf) the problem of the ball going too far was discussed and a simple solution proposed was to make the ball lighter, the book suggests making the ball light enough to float in water which would be another bonus!

This has no effect on the appearance of the ball but does affect its distance performance. The great thing about this idea is that the aerodynamic impact of the lighter ball increases lift and drag so the shorter drive has less loss in distance than the longer drive and all the shot shaping skills are still required, in fact they're emphasised.

But we all know that the R&A and the USGA have no real clout in the golf world and all the shots are called by the manufacturers where the money is so nothing of any note will be done.

 

[Crow]

Just a thought.
Do you think the PGA might do something daring? Like have one of the tour competitions played where the players have to use "old " clubs, say, from Ben Hogans time?

It could be extra curricular, just for a laugh , with proceeds going to charity.
It could be played on the same course that a week previously they played a regular PGA event on.?

Now, if I were someone who liked watching the players as a spectator on the course, that is one event I would really be wanting to watch!

It's a possibility, they might do it as one of the warm up days instead of a Pro-Am.

They did get a few of Ben Hogan's drivers out a year or so back and the guys all had a go at hitting them, it's on YouTube I think.

 

[garyinderry]

Think it’s 50% so PW would be 60 yds for me
It would be ver strange 5yds gaps in clubs.

It would make for a very strange game indeed.

Just read about those caymen balls. They are very light at 26 grams which help reduce flight but I can imagine they are a nightmare in the wind. Haha

 

[Swinglowandslow]

The downside of using shallower dimples is that it reduces the aerodynamic effect of spin and so shot shaping.

I might have mentioned it before but in the 1968 book "In Search of the Perfect Swing" (one of the first in depth scientific studies of golf) the problem of the ball going too far was discussed and a simple solution proposed was to make the ball lighter, the book suggests making the ball light enough to float in water which would be another bonus!

This has no effect on the appearance of the ball but does affect its distance performance. The great thing about this idea is that the aerodynamic impact of the lighter ball increases lift and drag so the shorter drive has less loss in distance than the longer drive and all the shot shaping skills are still required, in fact they're emphasised.

But we all know that the R&A and the USGA have no real clout in the golf world and all the shots are called by the manufacturers where the money is so nothing of any note will be done.

I remember playing at a small club some 20yrs ago, and going down an adjacent fairway I saw one of the lads throwing stones etc into the water hazard, small lake.
I asked what was going on, and he said he was trying to get his ball back!!
Thought he was taking the p... and then he explained he was using a floating ball ( from the States).
Sure enough, there was his ball floating towards him..

 

[Blue in Munich]

It's a possibility, they might do it as one of the warm up days instead of a Pro-Am.

They did get a few of Ben Hogan's drivers out a year or so back and the guys all had a go at hitting them, it's on YouTube I think.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/ho...old-clubs-we-had-them-try-and-it-wasnt-pretty

 

[Grant85]

The downside of using shallower dimples is that it reduces the aerodynamic effect of spin and so shot shaping.

I might have mentioned it before but in the 1968 book "In Search of the Perfect Swing" (one of the first in depth scientific studies of golf) the problem of the ball going too far was discussed and a simple solution proposed was to make the ball lighter, the book suggests making the ball light enough to float in water which would be another bonus!

This has no effect on the appearance of the ball but does affect its distance performance. The great thing about this idea is that the aerodynamic impact of the lighter ball increases lift and drag so the shorter drive has less loss in distance than the longer drive and all the shot shaping skills are still required, in fact they're emphasised.

But we all know that the R&A and the USGA have no real clout in the golf world and all the shots are called by the manufacturers where the money is so nothing of any note will be done.

I'm happy to be advised on the aerodynamics. I'm sure they can regulate a ball that spins a bit more, doesn't cost more and has the same weight and feel as the current ball.

I think the USGA & R&A are aware that a bit technology roll back that would punish, or perceive to punish, weekend golfers, is not going to be good for the sport.

I'd reckon a ball so light that it floats would be too big a change for many and they are unlikely to go that route.

Despite what you say about the manufacturers, and I'm sure many are happy to state publicly that they don't want changes and hitting further distances helps get people into the game etc... I actually think privately a meaningful change to ball and clubs will be great for them. The big companies (with an R&D budget) get to flex their muscles that the smaller direct to consumer brands can't, they can release a load of new marketing explaining how their ball is the best conforming ball and the golfing population might all need new balls and clubs.

 

[Crow]

For those interested in the lighter ball here's some test data and a bit of science.

https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/ballWeight.php

 

[harpo_72]

I'm happy to be advised on the aerodynamics. I'm sure they can regulate a ball that spins a bit more, doesn't cost more and has the same weight and feel as the current ball.

I think the USGA & R&A are aware that a bit technology roll back that would punish, or perceive to punish, weekend golfers, is not going to be good for the sport.

I'd reckon a ball so light that it floats would be too big a change for many and they are unlikely to go that route.

Despite what you say about the manufacturers, and I'm sure many are happy to state publicly that they don't want changes and hitting further distances helps get people into the game etc... I actually think privately a meaningful change to ball and clubs will be great for them. The big companies (with an R&D budget) get to flex their muscles that the smaller direct to consumer brands can't, they can release a load of new marketing explaining how their ball is the best conforming ball and the golfing population might all need new balls and clubs.

The aerodynamics would work, but to police it is too difficult, we are talking microns on dimple depth. Compression is easier.

 

[Backsticks]

Were we not already largely bifurcated up to the rise of the Pro V where previously top golfers played the shorted balata ball and the rest of use played surlyn covered ones. If polymer engineers were up to a shorter ball in the past, I am sure they can easily come up one today with those characteristics minus the short lifespan.

 

[Backsticks]

Hoping the quoted line about being more interested in the interraction of the ball and the clubface suggests they are looking at sorting out the driver to make it smaller and less bouncy. Is there any elaboration on that about from officialdom ?

 

[Grant85]

The aerodynamics would work, but to police it is too difficult, we are talking microns on dimple depth. Compression is easier.

The golf rules governing equipment run to 99 pages and refer to other technical documents that no one other than golf equipment scientists could, or could be expected to, understand.

Appreciate whatever is put in place has to be measurable but the current rules are effectively impossible to police, especially outside of the elite echelons of the game.

No one is testing the coefficient restitution of a Driver face, other than the R&A at the Open last year... when they found a fair number where non-conforming.

Effectively the game of golf relies on manufacturers to test their equipment, or at least a %age of it, to ensure it is conforming and for everyone to trust them and assume that it's legal.

 

[harpo_72]

The golf rules governing equipment run to 99 pages and refer to other technical documents that no one other than golf equipment scientists could, or could be expected to, understand.

Appreciate whatever is put in place has to be measurable but the current rules are effectively impossible to police, especially outside of the elite echelons of the game.

No one is testing the coefficient restitution of a Driver face, other than the R&A at the Open last year... when they found a fair number where non-conforming.

Effectively the game of golf relies on manufacturers to test their equipment, or at least a %age of it, to ensure it is conforming and for everyone to trust them and assume that it's legal.

It is the golf authorities that need to police their rules, self regulation is and always will be open to urine extraction.
I think all of these ultra thin faces are on the limit, I would not be surprised if some are out side of legal due to tolerance. I also bet there is a tolerance as well that makes the hot ones legal and they are cherry picked. But you have to be swinging 115mph plus to really see it and I bet you could if your a tour pro feel it.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I played with a young gym bunny on Saturday. On a 510 yard par 5 he was at the back of the green with two 3 irons. I'm not sure that restricting the size of the driver alone is the answer. Maybe a combination of a minimum amount of loft (15 degrees?) and maximum shaft length could be considered.