Your take on limiting technology in a golf ball?

[Buckjob]

JB, We really don't see many short hitters winning golf tournaments either. The last I can remember is Brian Gay either last year or 2 years ago. I do remember Cory Pavin winning and reading about short hitting Paul Runyan and Jerry Barber winning back in the day. You can probably correct me on this.

Gay won earlier this year

 

[SharkHat]

The most cost effective way to "shorten" the course wouldn't require anything more than reprinting the scorecards and changing the par standards.

Congrats, that 400 yard par 4 is now a par 5. The 200 yard par 3 is now a par 4.

 

[JB]

JB, We really don't see many short hitters winning golf tournaments either. The last I can remember is Brian Gay either last year or 2 years ago. I do remember Cory Pavin winning and reading about short hitting Paul Runyan and Jerry Barber winning back in the day. You can probably correct me on this.

Really? Look at the longest hitters on tour for driving distance.
Gay, ZJ, Toms, Luke Donald. The list is fairly long.

 

[fastbasser]

This to a T. If this was all about cutting costs and saving courses, this would be the answer. Let rough grow longer to make people think about playing driver (pros that is). Instead, they want to turn back the clock because it benefits certain people greatly and will absolutely drive people from the game.

It will end up either as a set limit (like the driver) or nothing.

If the manufacturers, (like the sponsors on this board) wouldn't create such an issue I would bet they would have reigned this in a while ago.. It's all about the money. They make "new and improved"stuff every year to make more money. Plain and simple.

 

[majBC]

Really? Look at the longest hitters on tour for driving distance.
Gay, ZJ, Toms, Luke Donald. The list is fairly long.

True enough. But It does seem more short hitters won are were in contention in years past say pre 460cc drivers. It could just be me and my selective memory though. I was looking at some stats from 1967 and Jack was something like 2 yards from the longest driver on tour that year. Tiger is not short either and he wins at a nice clip also. I do think Jack and Tiger use their length to the best advantage and that is by not always hitting driver off the tee, but most won't do this even tour pros.

 

[JB]

If the manufacturers, (like the sponsors on this board) wouldn't create such an issue I would bet they would have reigned this in a while ago.. It's all about the money. They make "new and improved"stuff every year to make more money. Plain and simple.

This website having advertising has no bearing on a discussion.
Balls would still be manufactured and balls would still be sold.

I can honestly say I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion/debate. But pretty par for the course so far.

 

[fastbasser]

This website having advertising has no bearing on a discussion.
Balls would still be manufactured and balls would still be sold.

I can honestly say I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion/debate. But pretty par for the course so far.

Just saying I understand why you favor new technology....

 

[SharkHat]

LMAO. Wow.

 

[JB]

Just saying I understand why you favor new technology....

Excuse me? Do you really want to go down that path? Disgusting accusation.

 

[fastbasser]

Excuse me? Do you really want to go down that path? Disgusting accusation.

You totally disagree with my opinions while I disagree with yours.. Simple as that.

 

[ImaBeRealReal]

I think what JB is trying to say is that whether he was a member of this forum with 2 posts and a 30 handicap or owner of a golf website with a 2 handicap he still would prefer technology in the golf ball.

 

[Golf 'N Gator]

Id be fine with it if thats what the USGA and R&A decides is best. Like someone else said, they are already handcuffing you by limiting COR and driver head size and with the wedge groove rule.
I certainly understand why a lot of amateur golfers wouldnt like this idea but when the pros are driving the ball 350+ yards, at some point you have to say enough is enough.
Of course, you are always going to have those who would say that limiting technology is going to impact peoples' enjoyment of the game but honestly, its not as if golf scores are dropping dramatically for the average, weekend golfer; so Im not so sure that limiting the golf ball would make all that much of a difference to most people.

You could very well be right, and in my case if they do roll the ball back, I'll simply move up a set of tees, (See; Tee It Forward) but I'm still in the camp that says there is a real need now for "tour only" balls so they can get a handle on the 0.01% of all players that hit it too far and not screw over the other 99.99% that don't hit it too far in doing so.

 

[Badger_Golfer]

Ok, so heres an honest question for everyone: if scores/handicaps havent dropped all that much in recent years, despite all the equipment advances, how is limiting technology going to hurt the game? If all of these equipment advances have made the game easier (which you could argue it hasnt because handicaps havent gone down), why then is golf in decline?

 

[greggdrews]

I'm in favor of some restrictions on pro tours. I find watching someone hit driver 7 iron into a 570yd par 5 kind of uninteresting. I much prefer when they are forced to hit 3 wood off the tee 300yds and have to work the ball. Every year you see courses that had to add a tee or change something because it played too easy for the pros. No need for 7400+yd courses. In almost all other sports there is a difference between pros and average players with equipment, such as mlb uses wooden bats. Restriction at the pro level is a good thing and doesn't have to effect us.

On a side note I would love to see one tourny a year where players had to use equipment from a certain era. Bust out the hickory sticks, I'm sure every manufacturer could more than afford to make them for their players.

 

[Will_Mac]

It's not a level playing field. Young guys at my club here in NY hit driver 8 iron at 2 of our par 4's where a lot of us hit driver 5 wood. They are strong enough to take advantage of the new clubs and balls..The average golfer can not..

If you will, define young? I'm 45 and haven't come across a young guy who has awed me with his length. I can swing upwards of 120 mph with driver and my 100 yard club is a 60* LW.

I know that leaves me outside the average golfer designation but exercise and overall fitness keeps me closer to the young guys more than any degree of practice as I'm not much for that at all. Case in point this past Tuesday. It was my first round since August of last year and what do you know? I was longer than last year. The practice wasn't there to lay claim but my hard work in the gym surely was. The playing field is indeed level, or as level as one would attempt to make it, to take advantage of ability and technology relies only upon one's dedication and effort.

Younger people, on average, will always be superior physically to us older guys. Fact of life, regardless the implements at hand. My soon to be 18 year old son just beat me one-on-one in basketball for the very first time. The ball hasn't changed, nor the basket. But his ability and his effort sure has. He earned it.

Just like I have every time I tee it up with a young banger. "Let's see what ya got, kid." :wink:

 

[golfinFF]

I just caught up on this thread and some of the posts have me absolutely baffled. :confused2:

I admittedly have asked if some courses were too short in the past. I have since learned that was a very dumb question. Here's the reason why- I have learned no matter the course length scoring well is about managing your game around the course.

Balls & Distance
I don't think the ball needs rolled back at all. I have had the pleasure of playing the game with lots of different skill levels and length of hitters. I have been absolutely spanked score wise by guys who hit considerably shorter than I do.

So what if a few guys on tour and boom the ball 300+ on average when they pull driver. Those guys are not hitting the ball farther based purely on equipment technology. They are getting the ball to those distances because they are in better shape(strength, flexibility & conditioning) than others and definitely over players of the past. They also understand the physics behind the golf swing and kinesiology(body movement) this has allowed players to be far more efficient when swinging the club. Being in better shape and the better understanding of the bodies movement allow us all to create more club head speed, therefore hitting the ball farther.

Now throw in custom club fittings for shaft length, weight, flex(& flex points) clubs that are longer than 10 yrs ago and jacked lofts(irons) it's pretty obvious that the ball will go farther.

The ball has gotten better no doubt, with the better understanding of aerodynamics, compression, materials and manufacturing process's. But its not the only reason guys are hitting the ball so far.

Courses
For some those who are saying that rolling back the ball will allow courses to be built cheaper cause they wont have to be 7,000+ yards long, and shorter courses will result in cheaper course fees. Are you seriously gonna use that as an argument to say the ball needs rolled back?

I havent seen a new course built in my area or within an hr in at least 10 yrs. I haven't seen the current courses renovate and add tee boxes for the long hitters either.

Courses closing has nothing to do with players hitting the ball too far for them and in turn not playing that course. It's simple economics and the downturn in the economy along with the cost of playing golf and that people have busy lives. People simply don't have the expendable cash flow to play every weekend or more, guys are more involved with their kids lives than 10,15,20 yrs ago. I hear more and more from my friends that they can't play cause their kids have something going on.

We are also working more hrs than in yrs past to pay bills/get ahead. Very few people work a true 40hr a week monday through friday job. This leads to less "free time" to hit the course.

That's my 10cents!

 

[Kobey]

I'd like to see some research done in a testing facility on what would happen if the max distance was rolled back. Right now I believe it is 317 yards with a 120mph swing speed. So if they rolled it back to say, 300 yards at 120, what kind of change would that make for a 90 mph swing speed?

Let's say you set the machine to hit one of today's balls exactly 18 yards. If they rolled back the max distance by 17 yards and they hit a new ball with the same swing speed, I'd assume it would go more than 1 yard. So there must be some kind of physics or laws of motion or something that would come into play if they only limited the max distance. I'd assume that not everyone would lose the same distance, which would hurt the long drivers the most, and I hate all of them anyway.:act-up:

I'd like to think the ball companies are already doing some research into this, since they have the same testing equipment that the USGA does.

 

[golfinFF]

I'd like to see some research done in a testing facility on what would happen if the max distance was rolled back. Right now I believe it is 317 yards with a 120mph swing speed. So if they rolled it back to say, 300 yards at 120, what kind of change would that make for a 90 mph swing speed?

Let's say you set the machine to hit one of today's balls exactly 18 yards. If they rolled back the max distance by 17 yards and they hit a new ball with the same swing speed, I'd assume it would go more than 1 yard. So there must be some kind of physics or laws of motion or something that would come into play if they only limited the max distance. I'd assume that not everyone would lose the same distance, which would hurt the long drivers the most, and I hate all of them anyway.:act-up:

I'd like to think the ball companies are already doing some research into this, since they have the same testing equipment that the USGA does.

By the math alone then here are the numbers. The roll back you speak of is 5.4%, so the new ball wil go 94.6% of what the pre ball did.


Player A
Pre-roll back 120mph and 317 yards
Post-roll back 120mph and 300 yards
Difference of 17 yards

Player B swing speed is 75% of player A
Pre-roll back 90mph and 237.75 yards
Post-roll back 90mph and 224.9 yards
Difference of 12.85 yards

I would expect it to actually be more than what is listed for player B based on the fact that he/she will not compress the ball as well. The inability to compress the ball the same will lead to a lower smash factor and lower ball speed and therefore a greater decrease in distance.

 

[Ndfan301]

If your getting peer pressure to play from a length that is not good for your game, then Maybe a change n peers is needed.

This.

The intent I've heard many times is to design a ball with decreasing returns for the fastest swing speeds. So the average golfer would still hit 220, 260, etc..., but the longest pros wouldn't be able to hit 320, 350 any longer.

I'm an NOT giving up my high swing speed in order to hit the ball as far as someone with a 90 mph swing speed. NEVER. I will literally give up golf if this becomes the norm, ever. I have not put in years building up swing speed, and then learning how to crush the ball down the fairway, just to have anyone tell me, I HAVE to slow down in order to hit it farther. My Burner HT, a couple year old 460cc driver, does not go significantly farther than my previous driver, which was not a 460cc. I have the Burner because I like how I hit it, and it's more consistent, not significantly farther.

It's not a level playing field. Young guys at my club here in NY hit driver 8 iron at 2 of our par 4's where a lot of us hit driver 5 wood. They are strong enough to take advantage of the new clubs and balls..The average golfer can not..

I'm 27, not considered much of a young guy anymore, and can pretty much reach all par 4's I play with a good drive, and a low iron, and I only drive it 250, 275 if I get a hold of it.

Wouldn't be a bad idea IMHO. I do believe it would level the playing field. Except for the golf carts of course.. They have been around for 50 years.. Besides, I like mine!

So like mentioned earlier, NFL players are faster, give them ankle weights because it "levels the playing field"? Many people on here probably don't follow the IRL. But a few years ago, they went to 1 manufactorer, Honda, in order to "level the playing field" by making all the cars EXACTLY the same, and the driver now would be the key factor. I don't have all the facts, but they are now back to multiple manufactorers, because "leveling the playing field" didn't work. Because when everyone is handed the same EXACT equipment, eventually everyone will be on the same playing level, making golf extremely boring because everyone will be shooting either exactly, or nearly the same scores.

I strongly feel the better player is able to make better use of the new technology.

Wrong. The better player is the one that uses his equipment to the best he can, regardless of how much technology is in it. As you can see in my sig, I still game Ping Zings, irons that are nearly as old as I am. My cousin got new Callaway irons 2 years ago, his newer technology irons do not make him a better play than me, because truth be told, he isn't. And I'm not tooting my own horn, but he doesn't put in the practice time, the reading, or looking at way to improve. Nothing to do with the technology in his clubs, because in fact, his technology beats mine in every club except putters.

 

[Scrap Iron]

I was looking at the leaders in scoring average and according to Wikipedia here are some findings. 2011 68.86. 2001 68.81. 1991 69.59. 1981 69.80. 1971 70.27. 1961 69.85. So even with all the advancements in equipment and ball flight there isn't much variation in scoring average. I can only imagine that armatures scoring average has gone up. I'm fine if they freeze equipment but rolling things back is wrong. Be pro active not reactive.

 

[fastbasser]

A great debate! Ndfan301. NEWS FLASH!! At 27, you are a "young gun" LOL..:waving:

 

[blugold]

Somebody please tell me why it is a problem to have the pros shoot low scores and drive the ball really far?

Why should tour pros have their talent rolled back? Likewise, why should I have my (limited) talent rolled back because a pro can drive the ball 340 yards on demand.

 

[golf4life]

A great debate! Ndfan301. NEWS FLASH!! At 27, you are a "young gun" LOL..:waving:

If you want to play a game where strength and skill are eliminated off the tee, good for you. I'll play golf, thanks.

Having a ball that only limits long drives is like MLB creating a baseball with a surface that limits velocity to 80 mph because its not fair the weaker less skilled players can't throw a 95mph fastball so no one should.

Absurd

 

[Buckjob]

I bet in 40 years when technology is even better than today I will wish I was in my glory days or still a "young gun" but I'll prob just be glad that I can keep up by using those advanced clubs and balls to keep up with my slower swing speed by playing the proper tees with everyone that drives the ball further than I do.

 

[AoxomxoA]

I was looking at the leaders in scoring average and according to Wikipedia here are some findings. 2011 68.86. 2001 68.81. 1991 69.59. 1981 69.80. 1971 70.27. 1961 69.85. So even with all the advancements in equipment and ball flight there isn't much variation in scoring average. I can only imagine that armatures scoring average has gone up. I'm fine if they freeze equipment but rolling things back is wrong. Be pro active not reactive.

Considering the changes to the length of the courses, I'd say this downward trend in low score is even greater than these numbers graph out at.