PODCAST Off Course: Episode 15: Does Golf Have a Distance Problem?

Isn't that a problem, though? If courses are no longer viable, as you say, what's the solution?
It isn't a problem to me. I say we should embrace the era we live in. Does there need to be a solution? Is it a bad thing if golf no longer goes to Marion and instead goes to Harding Park? I don't believe it is.
 
But why do you have to be shotmaker? Being able to control a ball at that speed and distance is pretty impressive to me. Heck before him Bubba Watson hit the ball pretty damn far and took some different lines and was able to control his shot shape a bit for a while. I still am not sure others can do what Bryson is doing, I guess we will see. I don't understand the logic of wanting to go backwards in ball tech or equipment though. Whats next go from iPhones back to Motorola flip phones?

OK here we go. "Why go backwards in tech?" There are limits now (COR, CT, Ball etc). So, why even limit these? If these limits were there for Jack, Arnie, etc. why have them at all? Because when they were set, they were based on facts, existing tech, data at a certain point in time. Jack used to shave the heel of his driver for more gear effect. Now AI makes the face the MAVRIK.

Manufacturers have found ways to meet certain limits, yet create distance gains. Pros have become true athletes with 5 different coaches in their corner.

Essentially, the USGA & R&A are admitting they've miscalculated without actually admitting it when limits are set.

We can definitely act like 20% of total distance on the ground is NOT a problem. That's fine.



Balls roll. It's crazy, I know. It's almost like the guys on Tour know the EXACT carry yardages and how to hit the ball properly to maximize roll on holes that allow tons of rollout.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #54
Balls roll. It's crazy, I know. It's almost like the guys on Tour know the EXACT carry yardages and how to hit the ball properly to maximize roll on holes that allow tons of rollout.
Yep. The same holes that offer up 10% of that same roll weeks outside the event...
 
OK here we go. "Why go backwards in tech?" There are limits now (COR, CT, Ball etc). So, why even limit these? If these limits were there for Jack, Arnie, etc. why have them at all? Because when they were set, they were based on facts, existing tech, data at a certain point in time. Jack used to shave the heel of his driver for more gear effect. Now AI makes the face the MAVRIK.

Because there are 25 million golfers and out of that 1000 hit it really far.
This is like saying all highways should be 35 MPH Speed Limits because lane squatters from NJ and NY go to FL and drive 35 in the left lane. :ROFLMAO:
People should do some research on when COR went into effect too. its not as if the same things applied today that did in the sixties. Lots of courses have been built and designed with modern tech around.
 
Yep. The same holes that offer up 10% of that same roll weeks outside the event...

Are you telling me they change course setups for pros? Stop this crazy talk. I mean, it's almost like they're trying to give shorter hitters a chance.
 
Because there are 25 million golfers and out of that 1000 hit it really far.
This is like saying all highways should be 35 MPH Speed Limits because lane squatters from NJ and NY go to FL and drive 35 in the left lane. :ROFLMAO:
People should do some research on when COR went into effect too. its not as if the same things applied today that did in the sixties. Lots of courses have been built and designed with modern tech around.

We're talking pros, not Joe's. Not talking typical golfer at all. Otherwise, grow the grass for them too, right? :p

joes.jpg
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #58
Are you telling me they change course setups for pros? Stop this crazy talk. I mean, it's almost like they're trying to give shorter hitters a chance.
You are so far gone on this I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore hahahaha
 
We're talking pros, not Joe's. Not talking typical golfer at all. Otherwise, grow the grass for them too, right? :p

View attachment 8954857
They already do grow the grass. So where do you cut the line? What about top notch college players? Mini tours? LPGA?
 
This was one of my fav off course episodes. Great listen.

It is interesting that You have @golfunfiltered on one side @Canadan on the other and @HipCheck seems to be kinda in the middle. I was at one point very firmly in the nothing needs to be done camp. I am not so sure anymore. I think something should be done. I just have no idea what that is..

We all have to realize though, that the rollback crowd is largely an aesthetics thing. Score is really not part of the conversation. It is a "how is the game played" deal. Unless we start playing all events on tight tall tree lined courses like Harbor Town. You have to find a way to protect the course.

I do feel that in may ways the PGA wants this. If you play all your events on cookie cutter TPC of name your fav town. They are all going to look the same and be played the same.
 
They already do grow the grass. So where do you cut the line? What about top notch college players? Mini tours? LPGA?

I'm not sure, but there are lots of differences between college sports and their pro counterparts to look at, including the size and shape of a college vs. pro football. It's not close to being unprecedented.
 
I'm not sure, but there are lots of differences between college sports and their pro counterparts to look at, including the size and shape of a college vs. pro football. It's not close to being unprecedented.
But the argument the woke is making is about course design. Other sports shouldn’t really come into play.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #63
But the argument the woke is making is about course design. Other sports shouldn’t really come into play.
NBA Players hit too many three pointers. They should probably move it back.
Kickers make to many field goals, they should probably shrink the posts.
Pitchers throw the ball too hard. They should move them back.
Hitters hit the ball too easily, they should add a wobble to the ball.
Tennis players rallies are too long. They should shrink the court and raise the net.

etc etc etc etc etc.
 
I don't want golf courses to ... ....have bunkers in the middle of fairways, forced layups. ETC..

You've never played courses that already have those? I get the caddyshack 2 stuff, but I see a lot of those ^ two examples. They usually just introduce risk/rewards scenarios, which I'm okay with.
 
NBA Players hit too many three pointers. They should probably move it back.
Kickers make to many field goals, they should probably shrink the posts.
Pitchers throw the ball too hard. They should move them back.
Hitters hit the ball too easily, they should add a wobble to the ball.
Tennis players rallies are too long. They should shrink the court and raise the net.

etc etc etc etc etc.

The three point line went from none existence, to existence, and was actually moved forward in the mid 90s in an attempt to increase scoring, then back again a couple years later.

And the moved the PAT attempts back for Kickers what? Two years ago and misses increased dramatically.

Baseball reduced the height of the mound. Largely due to Bob Gibson in an attempt to slow pitchers.

Not tennis but competitive table tennis increased the size of the ball from 38mm to 40mm in the mid 2000s. Then just a few years ago switched from celuloid to plastic all in an attempt to slow the ball. Also at that time the banned the use of speed glue.

lots of precedent for change.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #66
The three point line went from none existence, to existence, and was actually moved forward in the mid 90s in an attempt to increase scoring, then back again a couple years later.

And the moved the PAT attempts back for Kickers what? Two years ago and misses increased dramatically.

Baseball reduced the height of the mound. Largely due to Bob Gibson in an attempt to slow pitchers.

Not tennis but competitive table tennis increased the size of the ball from 38mm to 40mm in the mid 2000s. Then just a few years ago switched from celuloid to plastic all in an attempt to slow the ball. Also at that time the banned the use of speed glue.

lots of precedent for change.
they didn't make kicking harder in football, they made the PAT less irrelevant.

My point was that there is no real comfort zone for change from sport to sport. relating any of it to golf is tough because the conditions are so different.
 
they didn't make kicking harder in football, they made the PAT less irrelevant.

My point was that there is no real comfort zone for change from sport to sport. relating any of it to golf is tough because the conditions are so different.

agreed, I am just showing that sports change.
 
they didn't make kicking harder in football, they made the PAT less irrelevant.

My point was that there is no real comfort zone for change from sport to sport. relating any of it to golf is tough because the conditions are so different.
There is a big conspiracy theory about juiced baseballs in recent years 😳 but still not relevant to golf.
 
But the argument the woke is making is about course design. Other sports shouldn’t really come into play.

I was using it as a "pros could get used to a different ball" argument, but if we want to talk varied playing playing fields, baseball is like that.

There's a reason aluminum bats aren't allowed on the pro level. If they were, Fenway Park and the right field at Yankee Stadium would give up who knows how many home runs a game. Hell, someone might even hit one out at Citi Field. ;)
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #71
I was using it as a "pros could get used to a different ball" argument, but if we want to talk varied playing playing fields, baseball is like that.

There's a reason aluminum bats aren't allowed on the pro level. If they were, Fenway Park and the right field at Yankee Stadium would give up who knows how many home runs a game. Hell, someone might even hit one out at Citi Field. ;)
But you cannot simply change the condition of a product like a golf ball without companies losing their minds.

It's all about realistic change, not change that would heavily impact the industry. While the USGA and R&A seem to collectively have a lot of nerve, I cannot fathom them doing something like that. It's just not realistic to me.
 
Tennis players rallies are too long. They should shrink the court and raise the net.

Tennis is a good tech scenario. Back in the McEnroe era, there was a lot of shotmaking and artistry. Wilson introduced the Profile racquet in 1987 that was WIDE (talking frame thickness) and much more stiff than wood, graphite and ceramic counterparts. It fundamentally changed the game. Try and watch a pro tennis match on hardcourt now. It sucks. It's all serve and aces. Super stiffer racquets. Balls hit too fast for players to react. Aces and shanks.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #73
Not to mention the Tour will never go for it.

Go watch a broadcast. How many times do they celebrate a perfectly accurate drive vs a drive that goes a specific distance?
How interested are you in watching a top professional hit the ball 270 with roll?

It's just not realistic.
 
I was using it as a "pros could get used to a different ball" argument, but if we want to talk varied playing playing fields, baseball is like that.

There's a reason aluminum bats aren't allowed on the pro level. If they were, Fenway Park and the right field at Yankee Stadium would give up who knows how many home runs a game. Hell, someone might even hit one out at Citi Field. ;)

The Aluminum bat isn't allowed in MLB because of safety.

The argument being made about pros to play different equipment is that they aren't playing the course how it is designed. yet modern courses since limits were set have been in place. Maybe its time to not play the same dozen courses anymore or improve them for pros to play. Its not the length, its the layout, combined with the 40 yards of roll weekly for those highlight watchers that don't watch the golf, but choose to pick a stat or two (see @golfunfiltered :ROFLMAO:). Some of the hardest courses on tour are not the longest.

Then it shifted to CT debate, as if that was how clubs were measured in the 60s and 70s.
Then it shifted to land being available. Then it was about par being made foolish.

All for less than a 15 yard difference in over a decade.

People are making it out to be that distance and speed is not a skill and anybody can do it, yet so few actually do. Setting a random line as you said works in theory, but what about the KF Tour? Mini tour? US Am? Collegiate? LPGA? Mexican Mini Tour?
 
But you cannot simply change the condition of a product like a golf ball without companies losing their minds.

It's all about realistic change, not change that would heavily impact the industry. While the USGA and R&A seem to collectively have a lot of nerve, I cannot fathom them doing something like that. It's just not realistic to me.

I hear what you're saying completely. I think companies would adapt. You can play the ball DJ plays, but aren't limited to distance. A commercial w/an Am hitting it as far as him. They'll work it out.

I think the bigger "issue" w/bifurcation is OEMs will say "OK we need to dial back the ball for pros, then why can we move it forward for amateurs? Why limit them? That line in the sand no longer has value."

That will be be a mess.
 
Back
Top